UC-NRLF 


L  B    ^(^aMTbi         QUICKNESS  OF 
IOG3  ARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 


1;  v 


DARWIN  OLIVER  LYON,  A.  M. 


REPRIN'xISD  FROM 
ARCHIVES    OF    PSYCHOLOGY 

NO.  Hi 


Submitted  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Philosophy  In  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy,  Columbia  University  * 


NEW   YORK 
1016 


THE  RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF 
LEARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 


BY 

DARWIN  OLIVER  LYON,  A.  M. 


REPRINTED  FROM 

ARCHIVES    OF    PSYCHOLOGY 

No.  34 


Submitted  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Philosophy  in  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy,  Colombia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1916 


Press  of 

The  New  era  printing  company 

Lancaster,  pa. 


PREFACE 

The  present  work  is  the  outgrowth  of  experiments  on  memory  that 
I  have  been  conducting  since  the  year  1906.  My  studies  have  had  in 
view  several  problems  under  the  general  head  of  memory,  and  some 
of  the  results  have  already  been  published  as  follows : 

' '  The  Relation  of  Length  of  Material  to  Time  Taken  for  Learning, 
and  the  Optimum  Distribution  of  Time,"  Journal  of  Educational 
Psychology,  1914,  5,  1-9,  85-91,  155-163. 

The  problem  of  the  present  study  has  been  in  view  from  the  start, 
but  has  not  been  included,  except  incidentally,  in  the  articles  which 
are  enumerated  above. 

Acknowledgments  are  due  first  of  all  to  Professor  Cattell,  to  whom 
I  am  especially  indebted  for  the  numerous  suggestions  and  for  the 
many  valuable  hints  and  criticisms  given  me  in  the  treatment  of  the 
results.  For  similar  reasons  I  must  also  thank  Professors  Thorndike 
and  Woodworth.  To  Professor  E.  Meumann,  formerly  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Leipzig,  I  am  indebted  for  his  numerous  suggestions  and 
for  the  opportunity  given  me  to  perform  certain  experiments  on  the 
students  at  the  University  of  Leipzig. 

The  numerous  professors,  superintendents,  principals  and  teachers 
who  have  made  this  work  possible  are  too  numerous  to  mention.  I  am 
under  particular  obligation,  however,  to  Alfred  E.  Rejall,  formerly 
professor  of  philosophy  and  psychology  of  the  State  Normal  College 
at  Albany,  N.  Y. ;  and  also  to  Mr.  Frank  Lawrence  Glynn,  superin- 
tendent of  the  State  Trade  School  of  Bridgeport,  for  numerous  cour- 
tesies extended  me,  as  well  as  for  his  expert  opinion  on  all  matters  per- 
taining to  vocational  instruction. 

The  author  also  extends  his  thanks  to  the  following  for  permis- 
sions and  privileges  granted :  Joseph  F.  Scott,  superintendent  of  New 
York  State  Reformatories  and  Prisons;  Hon.  John  J.  Barry,  com- 
missioner of  correction  of  the  City  of  New  York ;  Dr.  C.  Macfie  Camp- 
bell, of  Bloomingdale  Hospital,  White  Plains ;  Dr.  Frederic  L.  Wells, 
of  McLean  Hospital,  Waverley,  Mass. ;  Dr.  August  Hoch,  director  of 
the  Psychiatric  Institute  on  Wards  Island. 

The  writer  also  desires  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  all  those 
who  served  as  subjects  in  the  various  experiments,  and  especially  to 
those  who  were  so  obliging  as  to  undertake  the  40-nonsense-syllable, 
and  other  long  tests. 

iii 


3665 


CONTENTS 

Chapter  I 

Historical    1 

Chapter  II 

Methods  Employed 17 

The  Problem  Stated 17 

Methods  of  Experiment 17 

Materials  Used 22 

Methods  of  Scoring   24 

Classes  of  Subjects  Tested 33 

Chapter  III 

Results    34 

The  Tables  34 

Time  of  Initial  Learning 37 

Interval  between  Learning  and  Reproduction 40 

Amount  Retained   41 

Intellectual  Standing 52 

Social  Standing 53 

Age 54 

Sex 55 

Chapter  IV 

Summary  and  Recapitulation  of  the  Main  Results 56 

Appendix 

Some  of  the  Materials  Used 59 


THE  RELATION   OF  THE  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARN- 
ING TO  RETENTIVENESS 


CHAPTER  I 

HISTORICAL 


The  history  of  scientific  inquiry  concerning  the  relation  of  The 
Quickness  of  Learning  to  Retentiveness,  and,  for  that  matter  nearly 
all  experimental  work  on  memory,  dates  back  only  thirty-four  years. 
Before  1880,  experimental  psychology  had  confined  itself  largely  to 
reaction  times  and  sensations,  but  with  the  publication  of  Ebbing- 
haus's  "Uber  das  Gedachtnis"1  in  1885  experimental  work  on  mem- 
ory acquired  an  impetus  that  has  ever  since  been  on  the  increase. 
The  material  chosen  by  Ebbinghaus  for  his  experiments  consisted  of 
about  2,300  nonsense-syllables  made  and  selected  as  follows :  From  the 
simple  consonants  and  the  eleven  German  vowels  and  diphthongs  he 
formed  all  the  meaningless  syllables  possible  by  placing  a  vowel  or  a 
diphthong  between  two  consonants.  These  lists  of  nonsense-syllables 
were  then  shuffled  and  drawn  by  lot.  Ebbinghaus  preferred  these 
"nonsense-syllables"  to  words  because  of  their  relative  simplicity. 
The  remark  is  often  made,  however,  that  nonsense-syllables  are  not 
simple,  and  that  on  the  contrary,  they  are  in  some  respects  as  com- 
plex as  words.  Ebbinghaus  himself  remarks  that  something  more 
simple  would  be  desirable  for  the  reason  that  the  learning  of  nonsense- 
syllables  involves  not  only  the  sense  of  sight  and  hearing,  but  the 
muscular  sense  of  the  vocal  organs  (tongue,  lips,  etc.) .  Moreover,  not 
only  do  nonsense-syllables  not  possess  equivalent  tendencies  to  set  up 
association  processes,  but  certain  lists  of  syllables  that  may  appear 
equally  difficult  to  one  individual,  may  appear  very  unequal  to 
another.  However,  with  all  their  faults,  nonsense-syllables  are  pre- 
ferred by  many  psychologists  to  words,  prose,  or  poetry  for  testing 
the  "organic  memory."  Words  are  apt  to  form  associations  too 
easily,  especially  with  some  individuals ;  and  prose  and  poetry  are  far 
from  being  homogeneous  in  that  they  are  constantly  changing  in 
character.    This  is  especially  the  case  with  those  individuals  in  whom 

1  An  excellent  translation  of  this  monograph  has  recently  been  made  by 
Ruger  &  Bussenius,  under  the  title  "Memory."  It  comprises  Educational  Re- 
print No.  3  of  Teachers  College,  Columbia  University. 

1 


2         \lFL.-TUiN  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

"interest"  is  so  necessary  that  material  not  "interesting"  to  them  is 
practically  impossible  of  memorization.  Though  it  is  true  that  many 
of  the  nonsense-syllables  used  by  Ebbinghaus  were  such  as  to  allow 
numerous  associations,  his  experiments  were  so  conducted  as  to  pre- 
clude the  forming  of  these  associations  to  a  considerable  extent;  in 
fact,  with  Ebbinghaus  they  were  seldom  formed.  Another  advantage 
in  the  use  of  nonsense-syllables  is  that  they  afford  an  almost  unlimited 
number  of  combinations  of  a  similar  character  and  quantity.  Never- 
theless, nonsense-syllables  have  so  many  objections  not  carried  by 
digits  that  it  is  a  question  as  to  whether  the  latter  would  not  be  better 
for  the  testing  of  "organic"  or  "rote"  memory. 

Ebbinghaus  gave  much  careful  attention  to  details  of  method. 
His  method  was  to  repeat  the  syllables  aloud  until  he  could  voluntarily 
recall  them.  He  considered  that  he  "knew"  them  when  he  was  able 
to  repeat  the  series  correctly,  in  a  given  time,  after  the  first  syllable 
had  been  supplied.  A  series  was  read  through  once  from  beginning 
to  end  without  stopping,  and  then  upon  the  first  syllable  being  sup- 
plied the  attempt  was  made  to  repeat  the  entire  series,  stopping  how- 
ever, at  the  first  hesitation.  At  this  first  hesitation,  the  remainder  of 
the  list  was  read  and  the  entire  repetition  was  started  again.  The 
syllables  were  read  and  repeated  at  the  rate  of  150  per  minute  and 
in  a  uniform  tone.  The  rate  was  secured  by  timing  the  reading  by 
ticking  of  a  watch  or  by  the  strokes  of  a  metronome.  Upon  a  series 
being  completely  memorized,  Ebbinghaus  made  a  pause  of  15  seconds 
for  noting  the  results,  after  which  he  immediately  started  in  on  an- 
other series.  No  attempt  was  made  to  form  logical  associations,  the 
speed  being  so  great  as  to  practically  preclude  this.  Ebbinghaus 
took  great  care  that  all  the  conditions  would  be  such  as  to  favor  atten- 
tion ;  his  environment  was  such  as  to  favor  concentration  and  in  case 
of  ill  health  the  experiment  was  deferred. 

Though  Ebbinghaus  did  not  specifically  attack  the  problem  of 
retention  as  related  to  speed  of  learning,  some  of  his  results  are 
fundamental  in  considering  this  problem.  It  should  be  understood 
that  he  experimented  only  upon  himself  as  subject,  and  that  his  re- 
sults have  therefore,  in  the  first  instance,  only  individual  validity; 
but  it  should  also  be  remarked  that  he  tested  every  point  in  many 
trials,  and  that  he  was,  undoubtedly,  an  unusually  steady  and  trust- 
worthy subject  for  experiment. 

One  of  his  results  that  is  pertinent  to  our  study  concerns  the  effect 
on  retention  of  varying  amounts  of  time  devoted  to  the  original 
learning.  He  found,  as  we  should  naturally  expect,  that  the  greater 
the  number  of  repetitions,  within  certain  limits,  the  better  the  reten- 
tion.   To  determine  the  effect  of  many  repetitions  upon  retention  he 


HISTORICAL  3 

repeated  a  series  of  16  syllables  a  definite  number  of  times,  and  then 
noted  how  many  repetitions  were  required  24  hours  later  to  complete 
the  learning.  He  found  that  about  one  third  of  the  labor  was  saved 
by  the  repetition  of  the  day  before.  Thus  we  may  say  that  three 
repetitions  to-day  save  one  to-morrow,  or,  in  other  words,  for  every 
three  times  a  person  repeats  such  a  list  to-day,  he  will  save  one  repe- 
tition 24  hours  later.  This  was  true,  whether  the  number  of  repeti- 
tions on  the  first  day  was  barely  sufficient,  more  than  sufficient,  or  less 
than  sufficient  to  enable  the  series  to  be  immediately  recited. 

In  a  general  way,  this  same  result  applied  also  to  the  retention  of 
series  of  differing  length,  learned  at  first  to  the  point  of  correct 
recitation.  As  would  be  expected,  it  required  a  longer  time  to  learn  a 
long  series  than  a  shorter  one.  Ebbinghaus  found  that,  as  a  rule,  he 
could  repeat  a  series  of  seven  syllables  after  a  single  reading ;  about 
17  readings  were  required  for  a  series  of  twelve  syllables,  and  nearly 
30  readings  for  a  series  of  sixteen.  But,  on  testing  twenty-four  hours 
later,  he  found  that  the  longer  series  were  the  better  retained.  The 
additional  work  which  the  long  series  demanded  in  learning  produced 
an  enduring  effect,  much  as  if  it  had  been  devoted  to  the  over-learning 
of  shorter  series. 

Ebbinghaus  found  that  the  value  of  a  repetition  for  purposes  of 
retention  was  greater  when  the  learning  was  distributed  over  several 
days  than  when  it  was  concentrated  into  a  single  study  period.  Thus, 
in  one  series  of  experiments,  he  learned  12-syllable  series  on  one  day, 
and  relearned  them  on  the  three  succeeding  days.  The  average  num- 
ber of  readings  required  for  an  errorless  recitation  was  17.5  the  first 
day,  12  the  second  day,  8.5  the  third  clay  and  5  the  fourth  day.  In 
another  experiment  he  continued  reading  12  syllables  beyond  the  time 
necessary  to  learn  them,  i.  e.,  the  number  of  repetitions  was  greater  than 
that  needed  for  an  errorless  repetition.  Thus  if  the  series  was  re- 
peated only  eight  times  on  one  day  they  were  not  known  the  following 
day ;  nor  could  they  even  be  recognized  as  the  list  studied.  If  given 
68  repetitions,  however,  they  could  be  recognized  the  next  day,  al- 
though the  series  could  not  be  given,  for,  on  relearning  the  series  24 
hours  later,  7  repetitions  were  required.  On  comparing  the  two  facts 
as  given  above  it  will  be  noticed  that  in  the  first  case  38  repetitions, 
distributed  over  three  days,  needed  on  the  fourth  day  only  five  repe- 
titions ;  while  68  readings  on  one  day  needed,  even  on  the  very  next 
day,  seven  repetitions. 

Ebbinghaus 's  studies  on  the  rate  of  forgetting  are  especially  well 
known.  He  found  that  while  it  is  relatively  rapid  at  first,  later 
it  goes  on  more  and  more  slowly,  and  in  his  judgment  nothing  once 
learned  is  ever  absolutely  forgotten.    He  found  after  an  interval  of 


/ 

4        EELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

one  hour  so  much  has  been  forgotten  that  more  than  half  the  time 
originally  expended  must  be  again  applied  to  the  work  in  order 
to  relearn  it.  After  eight  hours  almost  two  thirds  of  the  labor 
must  be  repeated.  From  this  point%  it  would  seem  that  the  process 
of  forgetting  proceeds  more  slowly.  After  twenty-four  hours 
two  thirds  of  the  original  labor  must  still  be  performed,  *.  e.,  the 
"impression  of  the  whole"  retains  about  one  third  of  its  original 
strength.  The  change  now  becomes  still  slower,  for  even  after  six 
days  one  quarter  is  still  retained,  and  after  a  month  one  fifth.  "It 
is  noteworthy"  says  Burnham,  "that,  while  the  impression  made  by 
nonsense-syllables  is  so  evanescent  that  a  series  once  perfectly  learned 
is  forgotten  after  an  interval  of  twenty  minutes,  a  residuum  of  some 
sort  persists  for  a  long  time,  so  that  even  after  a  month  the  same 
series  can  be  relearned  in  four  fifths  of  the  time  originally  required. 
A  general  statement  of  the  results  is  as  follows :  The  ratio  of  what  is 
retained  to  what  is  forgotten  is  inversely  as  the  logarithm  of  the 
time." 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  only  those  experiments  of  Ebbing- 
haus  in  which  the  material  used  was  nonsense  syllables..  We  will  now 
turn  our  attention  to  the  experiments  in  which  he  used  logical  trains 
of  thought.  For  this  work  Ebbinghaus  used  stanzas  from  Byron's 
"Don  Juan."  He  found  that  the  time  taken  to  learn  a  stanza  was 
only  one  tenth  as  long  as  that  needed  for  a  list  of  nonsense  syllables  of 
the  same  number  as  the  number  of  syllables  in  the  stanza.  In  other 
words,  material  connected  by  the  bonds  of  sense  and  rhythm  needed 
only  one  tenth  the  number  of  repetitions  required  by  material  not 
so  connected.  Not  only  was  the  meaningful  material  more  speedily 
learned,  but  it  was  also  better  retained.  As  tested  twenty-four  hours 
after  learning,  by  his  ' '  saving  method, '  '2  the  retention  was  as  follows : 

No.  Readings  Re-  No.  Readings  Re-  Per  Cent. 

Material  Learned  quired  to  Learn  quired  to  Relearn  Retained 

12-syllable  series   16.5  11  33 

24-syllable  series   44  22.5  49 

36-syllable  series   55  23  58 

Stanza  of  "Don  Juan" 7.75                               3.75  52 

Meaning,  therefore,  affects  the  speed  of  learning  and  the  retention 
in  the  same  way,  favoring  quick  learning  and  tenacity  of  retention. 

Another  factor  that  affects  the  two  in  the  same  way  is  the  speed 
of  reading.  Ebbinghaus  reports  experiments3  in  memorizing  stanzas 
of  Schiller's  translation  of  the  JEneid  at  the  rate  of  200,  150,  120  and 
100  iambics  per  minute.    At  these  rates,  he  learned  the  same  number 

2  See  below,  p.  20. 

3Grundzuge  der  Psychologie, "  2d  ed.}  1911,  pp.  672-673. 


HISTOEICAL  5 

of  lines  in  138,  148,  160  and  180  seconds  respectively,  thus  proving 
that  the  amount  of  time  required  varied  inversely  as  the  speed  of 
reading. 

To  be  sure,  a  greater  number  of  repetitions  is  required  with  the 
rapid  than  with  the  slow  rates.  He  concludes  that  the  fastest  rate  of 
reading  is  the  most  economical  as  concerns  the  act  of  learning.  In 
order  to  test  the  retention  as  well,  he  relearned  the  stanzas  twenty- 
four  hours  later,  using  now  for  all  the  constant  rate  of  150  iambic 
feet  per  minute,  and  found  that  the  stanzas  which  had  been  originally 
read  at  the  greatest  speed  and  learned  in  the  least  time  were  also,  on 
the  whole,  slightly  better  retained  than  those  that  had  been  read  more 
slowly.  He  repeated  the  retention  test  after  eight  days,  with  the  same 
result. 

In  1887  G.  E.  Muller  and  F.  Schumann,4  stimulated  by  the  work 
of  Ebbinghaus,  set  out  to  repeat  his  experiments  on  a  more  elaborate 
scale,  making,  however,   certain  changes  in  method  and  material. 
Their  labors  extended  over  a  period  of  five  years  (1887-1892  inc.). 
The  only  fundamental  difference  between  their  experiments  and  those 
of  Ebbinghaus  was  that  they  did  not  let  the  subject  know  the  purpose 
or  result  of  the  various  experiments,  a  thing  obviously  impossible 
where  the  experimenter  uses  himself  as  subject.     The  material  used 
consisted  of  nonsense-syllables  similar  to  those  used  by  Ebbinghaus, 
but  selected  with  greater  care,  and  instead  of  being  read  directly  from 
the  sheet  of  paper  on  which  they  were  written  and  where  they  could 
all  be  seen  at  once,  they  were  read  from  a  revolving  drum  through 
a  slit  in  a  screen.    The  drum  from  which  the  syllables  were  read  was 
allowed  to  revolve  at  different  rates  in  the  various  experiments.    The 
three  rates  used  were  such  that  the  syllables  appeared  at  intervals  of 
0.731,  0.615,  and  0.572  seconds,  respectively.    Thus  the  intervals  were 
so  short  that  no  time  was  given  for  a  second  perception  or  for  the 
formation  of  mnemonic  acids.    As  explained  before,  the  material  used 
by  Ebbinghaus  was  far  from  being  homogeneous,  and  had  he  not  read 
them  at  so  rapid  a  rate  many  of  his  nonsense-syllables  would  have  been 
highly  undesirable  because  of  their  easy  associations.     Muller  and 
Schumann  invented  a  convenient  plan  for  constructing  nonsense- 
syllables  of  a  more  homogeneous  sort  than  those  used  by  Ebbinghaus. 
Ebbinghaus  left  the  make-up  of  the  syllables  wholly  to  chance,  while 
Muller  and  Schumann  laid  down  certain  rules  making  the  series  of 
syllables  "normal"  or  "extra  normal."    A  "normal"  list  of  syllables 
had  all  the  initial  consonants,  all  middle  vowels,  and  all  final  con- 
sonants different,  respectively,  from  the  syllable  immediately  pre- 
4  ' « Experimentelle  Beitrage  zur  Untersuchung  des  Gedachtnisses, ' '  Zeitsch. 
fur  Psijch.,  1894,  6,  81,  257. 


6        BEL  AT  ION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEAENING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

ceding  or  following.  The  initial  consonant  of  the  first,  and  final  con- 
sonant of  the  second  syllable  in  any  one  of  the  trochaic  feet  into 
which  the  series  was  divided  in  reading,  were  never  the  same.  Syl- 
lables forming  well-known  words  were  never  allowed  to  come  together. 
A  series  of  syllables  was  called  "extra  normal"  when  no  two  syl- 
lables used  on  the  same  day  had  two  letters  the  same. 

The  most  important  results  of  Miiller  and  Schumann's  experi- 
ments, bearing  on  the  quickness  of  learning,  may  be  stated  as  follows : 

1.  The  association  between  syllables  in  the  same  foot  is  much 
stronger  than  that  between  adjacent  members  of  different  feet.  The 
suppression  of  rhythm  in  memorizing  lists  of  nonsense-syllables 
renders  the  task  much  more  difficult,  nearly  twice  as  much  time  being 
required. 

2.  The  syllables  first  learned  are  not  necessarily  those  presented 
the  earliest.  Frequently  those  syllables  at  the  end  of  the  set  are  the 
first  the  subject  is  able  to  reproduce.  The  syllable  first  learned  is  that 
which  first  attracts  the  attention  strongly.  This  may  be  because  cer- 
tain associations  arose  easily  or  it  may  depend  on  circumstances 
purely  accidental,  i.  e.,  the  syllable  may  have  appeared  just  when  the 
attention  was  at  its  "height,"  and  thus  the  syllable  having  gained  the 
"ascendency,"  kept  it,  since  the  attention  naturally  centered  on  it 
every  time. 

3.  The  first  of  any  two  successively  and  simultaneously  experi- 
enced syllables  tends  to  call  up  the  second.  If  they  are  associated 
only  through  intermediate  syllables,  the  association  is  stronger  if  both 
are  accented.  The  second  syllable  in  a  trochaic  measure  tends  to  call 
up  the  first,  and  this  tendency  seems  to  be  stronger  than  the  tendency 
to  call  up  the  first  syllable  of  the  next  succeeding  measure.5 

4.  Under  certain  conditions,  syllables  with  associations  already 
established  prove  more  difficult  to  memorize  in  combination  with  new 
syllables,  than  when  such  associations  are  lacking.  The  previous  asso- 
ciations press  in  on  consciousness  and  disturb  attention  in  various 
ways. 

5.  The  ease  of  memorizing  seems  to  depend  upon  the  amount  and 
character  of  the  work  that  has  immediately  preceded,  aside  from  the 
factor  of  fatigue,  which,  of  course,  is  all-important. 

6.  The  ease  with  which  series  of  such  syllables  are  learned  de- 
pends not  alone  on  the  subjective  differences,  but  also  on  objective 
conditions,  which,  however,  may  lead  to  subjective  differences. 

Colegrove  in  his  book  entitled  "Memory"  briefly  sums  up  other 

s  We  should  not,  however,  infer  from  this  that  every  presentation  always 
tends  to  call  up  the  one  preceding  but  we  should  take  it  that  when  any  element 
of  a  complex  presentation  is  supplied  it  tends  to  call  up  all  the  others. 


HISTORICAL  7 

results  of  Miiller  and  Schumann's  work  as  follows:  A  syllable  series 
can  be  learned  more  easily  (1)  if  two  or  more  successive  syllables  have 
like  initial  consonants;  (2)  if  two  syllables  rhyme;  (3)  if  two  suc- 
cessive syllables  or  initial  syllables  of  two  successive  rhythms  have 
the  same  vowel  or  diphthong;  (4)  if  the  beginning  consonant  of  the 
first  syllable  and  the  end  consonant  of  the  second  syllable  of  a  rhythm, 
or  the  end  consonant  of  a  syllable  and  the  beginning  consonant  of  the 
next  syllable  are  the  same ;  (5)  if  two  or  more  syllables  form  a  word. 
On  the  other  hand,  consonants  difficult  to  pronounce  or  an  accumula- 
tion of  diphthongs  impeded  the  act  of  memorizing.  A  series  in  the 
trochaic  rhythm  is  memorized  more  easily  than  a  series  in  the  iambic 
rhythm. 

As  regards  retention,  Miiller  and  Schumann  found  that  the  per- 
son who  memorized  a  series  of  nonsense-syllables  in  the  shortest  time 
also  relearned  it  in  the  shortest  time  after  24  hours.  This  was  to  be 
expected,  since  what  is  forgotten  can  be  relearned  more  quickly  by  a 
quick  learner  than  by  a  slow  learner.  But  the  slow  learner  saved 
more  time,  both  absolutely  and  relatively,  than  the  fast  learner,  when 
the  relearning  was  compared  with  the  original  learning. 

Whitehead,  in  "A  Study  of  Visual  and  Aural  Memory  Proc- 
esses,"6 sets  out  to  answer  the  following  questions,  among  others: 
(1)  What  is  the  relative  quickness  of  the  visual  and  the  aural  senses 
when  employed  in  the  memorizing  of  nonsense-syllables  constructed 
like  those  of  Miiller  and  Schumann?  (2)  What  is  the  relative  power 
of  retention  for  matter  memorized  visually  compared  with  that  mem- 
orized aurally?  Or,  put  otherwise,  what  is  the  relative  rate  of  for- 
getting for  material  memorized  in  the  two  ways? 

Whitehead  answers  the  above  questions  as  follows :  "  ( 1 )  Of  our 
thirteen  subjects  ten  showed  themselves  able  to  memorize  most  rapidly 
from  visual  presentations  and  two  from  auditory,  while  one  gave  am- 
biguous results.  -This  outcome  is  without  much  doubt  to  be  correlated 
with  the  fact  that  so  much  of  our  memorizing,  whether  it  occurs  in 
the  verbatim  form,  or  merely  as  the  assimilation  of  meaning,  is 
brought  about  through  visual  process.  (2)  Matter  memorized  aurally 
appears  to  be  retained  slightly  better  than  that  memorized  visually. 
It  requires  less  repetition  by  32  per  cent,  to  learn  anew  from  visual 
presentations  matter  memorized  visually  a  week  previous,  and  less 
repetition  by  40  per  cent,  for  aural  memorizing  of  the  same  kind. 
The  difference  is  insignificant  in  view  of  the  total  number  of  cases. 
It  seems  to  be  simply  a  special  case  illustrative  of  the  general  prin- 
ciple already  mentioned  that  the  greater  the  number  of  original  repe- 
titions the  less  the  number  necessary  for  learning  anew." 

« Psych.  Eev.,  1896,  3,  258. 


8        DELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIYENESS 

In  regard  to  individual  differences  in  retentiveness,  Whitehead 
considers  that  the  slow  learner  both  relearns  in  shorter  time  and 
retains  a  larger  amount,  than  the  fast  learner.  An  examination  of  his 
results  however,  does  not  entirely  support  this  conclusion.  As  Pyle 
very  correctly  says,  ' '  If  we  eliminate  the  results  from  one  of  his  sub- 
jects (the  eleventh  in  the  first  table,  p.  267)  as  being  an  error  (for  it- 
shows  a  relearning  time  longer  than  the  time  for  original  learning), 
and  add  the  relearning  times  for  the  fast  six  and  the  slow  six,  respec- 
tively, we  find  without  exception  that  the  six  who  had  learned  in  the 
shortest  time  also  relearned  in  the  shortest  time.  In  fact,  if  we  rank 
the  two  series  for  learning  and  relearning,  for  the  various  tables,  from 
the  best  to  poorest,  we  find  a  fairly  high  degree  of  correlation  between 
quick  learning  and  good  retention." 

Jost,  in  his  article  entitled  "Die  Assoziationsfestigkeit  in  ihrer 
Abhangigkeit  von  der  Verteilung  der  Wiederholungen,"7  takes  up 
the  distribution  of  repetitions  as  a  factor  of  the  strength  of  associa- 
tion. At  first  he  uses  the  method  of  "complete  memorizing";  then 
he  uses  the  method  of  "right  associates,"  and  finally  the  two  in  con- 
junction. By  the  first  method  he  finds  that  ten  readings  of  a  series 
of  nonsense-syllables  on  each  of  three  successive  days  make  the  mem- 
orizing of  the  series  on  the  fourth  day  easier  than  do  thirty  readings 
on  the  day  immediately  preceding,  although  the  difference  is  small. 
By  the  method  of  right  associates  he  finds  that  when  twenty-four  repe- 
titions are  distributed  equally  on  three,  six  and  twelve  days,  respec- 
tively, the  most  extended  distribution  (that  of  two  repetitions  a  day), 
gives  the  best  retention.8  Jost  emphasizes  especially  the  matter  of 
repetitions,  and  explains  the  value  of  rests  between  readings  by  the 
theory  that  the  repetition  of  an  older  association  has  a  greater  value, 
relatively,  than  the  repetition  of  a  younger  one. 

In  her  article  entitled  "Experimentelle  Beitrage  zur  Lehre  vom 
okonomischen  Lernen,"9  Miss  Lottie  Steffens  considers  the  problem 
of  the  most  "economical"  method  of  learning,  more  especially  for 
logical  trains  of  thought.  The  two  methods  of  study  which  she  com- 
pares are  the  "piecemeal"  and  the  "entire"  or  "mass"  methods. 
The  former  is  that  usually  adopted  spontaneously  by  a  person  who 
has  a  long  passage  to  learn,  and  consists  in  dividing  the  passage  into 
parts,  and  reading  each  part  separately  till  it  can  be  recited,  finishing 
up  by  a  few  readings  of  the  whole  passage.     The  "entire"  method 

7  Zeitsch.  f.  Psychol.,  1897,  14,  436. 

s  The  question  naturally  arises,  however,  as  to  whether  some  other  distribu- 
tion might  not  be  still  more  favorable.  This  problem,  viz.,  the  optimum  distribu- 
tion of  time  is  considered  in  greater  detail  in  my  article  cited  in  the  preface. 

s  Zeitsch.,  1900;  22,  321,  465. 


HISTORICAL  9 

consists  in  reading  the  whole  passage  through  and  through  till  it  is 
learned.  The  "entire"  method,  though  not  appealing  to  the  subject 
at  the  outset,  is  shown  experimentally  to  give  the  quicker  learning,  as 
well  as  the  better  retention. 

These  experiments  were  repeated  by  Pentschew,10  with  children 
as  well  as  adults.  He  confirmed  the  advantage  of  the  "entire"  over 
the  "piecemeal"  method  of  study  in  adults,  and  also  in  children  so 
far  as  concerns  the  learning  and  retention  of  meaningful  material. 
With  nonsense  syllables,  however,  children  did  better  by  the  "piece- 
meal" method,  probably  because,  with  children,  the  learning  of  non- 
sense demands  so  much  effort  that  fatigue  and  disinclination  creep  in 
unless  the  syllables  are  studied  in  small  groups. 

Ogden,  in  his  paper  entitled  "Ueber  den  Einfluss  der  Geschwin- 
digkeit  des  lauten  Lesens  auf  das  Erlernen  und  Behalten  von  sinn- 
losen  und  sinnvollen  Stoffen,"11  obtain  results  much  the  same  as 
those  of  Miiller  and  Schumann.  He  finds  that  the  fast  learner 
rarely  requires  more  time  for  his  relearning  than  does  the  slow 
learner,  but  usually  less.  Ogden  used  both  logical  as  well  as  nonsense 
material  and  his  results  were  practically  the  same  for  both.  He  found 
that  although  the  curve  of  relearning  is  as  a  rule  nearly  parallel  to  the 
curve  of  initial  learning,  it  showed  as  a  rule  some  flattening,  that  is, 
individual  differences  in  time  of  relearning  are  not  as  great  as  are 
the  differences  in  time  of  initial  learning. 

Henderson12  found  that  in  general  those  who  learn  quickly  are  able 
later  to  recall  a  greater  percentage  of  what  they  have  learned  than 
the  slow  learners.  In  other  words  he  finds  that  the  power  to  learn 
readily  correlates  with  the  power  to  remember  what  has  been 
learned.  In  his  experiments,  however,  he  did  not  allow  his  subjects  to 
completely  learn  the  material,  and  for  his  material  he  used  only  prose. 
His  method,  briefly,  was  as  follows :  He  requested  his  subjects  to  read 
twice  a  selection  taken  from  "The  Dutch  Homestead"  by  Irving. 
Three  minutes  was  allowed  for  this.  The  subjects  were  then  requested 
to  write  down  as  much  as  they  could  remember.  Two  days  later  they 
were  again  called  upon  to  write  down  as  much  as  possible,  and  after 
a  lapse  of  four  weeks  a  third  recall  was  requested.  His  subjects 
varied  from  ten  years  up.  He  found  that  the  older  subjects  learned 
somewhat  better  than  the  younger  and  explained  this  as  due  to  their 
greater  capacity  to  understand."     This  capacity,  however,  seemed  to 

10 " Untersuchungen  zur  Okonomie  und  Technik  des  Lernens, "  Arch.  f.  d. 
gcs.  Psychol,  1903,  1,  417. 

ii  Archiv.  f.  d.  ges.  Psychol.,  2,  93. 

i- E.  N.  Henderson,  "A  Study  in  Memory,"  Psych.  Eev.  Mon.  Sup.,  No.  23, 
1903. 


10      EELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEAENING  TO  EETENT1VENESS 

have  no  influence  on  the  relative  retention.  Henderson's  results  can 
not  be  held  to  apply  to  nonsense-syllables  or  other  meaningless  mate- 
rial ;  and  even  with  respect  to  connected  prose,  the  material  used,  his 
results  are  not  directly  comparable  with  those  of  experiments  in 
which  complete  memorizing  has  occurred. 

Radosavljevich.13  conducting  experiments  in  Meumann's  labora- 
tory upon  both  adults  and  children,  found  better  retention  for  mean- 
ingful than  for  nonsense  material,  thus  confirming  the  result  above 
quoted  from  Ebbinghaus.  He  also  confirmed  Ebbinghaus's  result 
that  long  series  of  nonsense-syllables  were  better  retained  than  short 
series,  when  each  had  been  studied  to  the  point  of  correct  recitation. 
Practise  increased  the  speed  of  the  first  learning  and  of  relearning, 
but  the  first  more  than  the  second,  indicating  that  memorizing  and 
retention  are  two  distinct  facts  of  memory,  possessing  their  own 
peculiar  laws  and  conditions.  The  slower  learner  showed  a  greater 
"saving"  in  relearning,  and  he  concludes  from  this  that  the  slow 
learners  retain  better  than  the  rapid  learners.  Adults  learn  more 
rapidly  than  children,  but  (again  according  to  the  "saving"  method) 
retain  less  of  what  they  have  learned;  and  the  younger  children, 
similarly,  learn  more  slowly  but  retain  better  than  older  children. 

Extensive  experiments  upon  ' '  The  Relation  of  Facility  of  Learn- 
ing to  Tenacity  of  Impression ' '  have  been  conducted  by  Miss  Gamble 
since  1908,  and  are  not  yet  published  in  full  at  the  date  of  this 
writing.14  Her  experiments  were  designed  to  answer  the  following 
questions : 

1.  Do  the  persons  who  learn  with  the  greater  degree  of  facility 
retain  for  a  given  time  the  larger  fraction  of  the  material  severally 
mastered  1 

2.  In  the  case  of  individual  subjects,  does  the  rate  at  which  mate- 
rial is  presented  affect  the  fraction  of  the  initial  learning  time  which 
is  saved  in  the  relearning? 

3.  When  the  learning  time  is  lengthened  by  the  difficulty  of  the 
material  is  the  relearning  time  relatively  short  or  relatively  long  ? 

4.  How  may  retention  best  be  gauged  ? 

Two  sets  of  experiments  were  made :  the  first  set  bore  only  upon 
the  first  and  fourth  of  the  above  questions  and  was  made  by  the 
method  of  retained  members.15    The  other  set,  made  by  the  method  of 

is  "Das  Behalten  und  Vergessen  bei  Kindern  und  Erwachsenen  nach  experi- 
mentellen  Unte'rsuchungen, "  Leipzig,  1907. 

14  The  rather  brief  summary  of  her  work  here  given  has  been  made  from 
notes  taken  during  the  reading  of  a  paper  by  her  at  the  Washington  meeting  of 
the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science  (December,  1911). 

is  This  method  will  be  found  described  below  on  page  18. 


HISTORICAL  11 

complete   memorizing    (Erlernungsmethode)18   bore   upon    all   four 
questions. 

In  the  first  set  of  experiments  Gamble  used  as  subjects  350  college 
students  and  as  material  words,  letters  and  figures.     The  method  of 
presenting  the  material  and  the  method  of  ascertaining  each  subject's 
degree  of  retentiveness  differed  somewhat  from  year  to  year,  but  the 
procedure  may  be  roughly  outlined  as  follows :  The  material  was  read 
4  or  5  times  to  the  subjects  and  5  or  6  weeks  later  was  again  presented. 
The  subject's  tenacity  was  gauged  by  the  two  methods:  The  first  was 
comparable  to  what  I  have  called  "Method  l,"17  retention  being 
gauged  by  the  amount  of  material  that  could  be  reproduced  without 
a  fresh  presentation.     The  material  was  then  read  once  to  the  sub- 
jects, after  which  another  reproduction  was  called  for.    This  is  prac- 
tically the  same  as  what  I  have  called  "Method  2,"18    The  material 
was  then  read  several  times  to  the  subjects  after  which  still  another 
reproduction  was  called  for.    In  some  respects,  as  far  as  results  go, 
this  is  very  much  the  same  as  my  "Method  3,"19  although  complete 
relearning  was  not  allowed.    On  the  basis  of  the  results  obtained  by 
Method  1,  the  subjects  were  arranged  in  two  scales  according  to  their 
facility  in  learning  and  according  to  their  retentiveness  as  measured 
by  the  fraction  retained  of  the  amount  originally  learned.     Each 
scale  was  divided  into  quarters.    Gamble  found  that  those  who  fell  in 
the  first  quartile  as  regards  facility  in  learning,  fell  in  the  first  quar- 
tile  as  regards  retentiveness  in  sufficient  numbers  to  show  a  marked 
correlation  between  quickness  of  learning  and  tenacity  of  impres- 
sion.20   She  recognizes  the  fact  that  some  subjects  who  learn  a  very 
small  amount  in  the  first  experiment  appear  to  have  retained  a  rela- 
tively large  amount,  merely  because  the  amount  learned  the  first 
time  was  so  small  that  almost  anything  retained  must  be  a  large 
fraction  of  it.    The  results  secured  by  what  I  have  called  ' '  Method  2 ' ' 
were  of  doubtful  significance  but  the  results  obtained  by  "Method  3" 
showed,  as  might  be  expected,  a  marked  correlation  between  facility 
in  learning  and  relearning. 

is  This  method  will  be  found  described  on  page  2.     As  used  by  Gamble, 
it  was  practically  the  same  as  the  method  used  by  Ebbinghaus  except  that  with 
her  the  presentations  were  aural  instead  of  visual. 
"  See  below,  page  18. 
is  See  below,  page  19. 
is  See  below,  page  19. 

20  Were  there  no  correlation  whatsoever  it  is  obvious  that,  by  chance  alone, 
about  25  per  cent,  of  those  standing, in  the  first  quartile  of  "primary  learning" 
would  stand  in  the  first  quartile  of  "retentiveness."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  how- 
ever, Gamble  found  that  the  percentage  was  about  45, — i.  e.,  20  per  cent,  more 
than  chance  alone  could  account  for. 


12      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIYENESS 

In  the  second  set  of  experiments  mentioned  above  (those  made 
upon  subjects  by  the  method  of  complete-memorizing)  facility  and 
tenacity  were  gauged  by  the  time  (in  seconds)  of  learning  and  re- 
learning.  The  material  consisted  of  nonsense-syllables.  The  time 
which  elapsed  between  learning  and  relearning  was  either  one  or  two 
weeks,  differing  with  different  subjects.  In  these  experiments  Gamble 
found  a  slight  correlation  between  quickness  of  learning  and  reten- 
tiveness.  This,  however,  she  found  by  what  we  might  term  the  ' '  abso- 
lute" method  of  comparison,  i.  e.,  a  comparison  of  the  actual  time 
taken  for  relearning  with  the  actual  time  taken  for  the  original 
learning — not  dividing  the  one  into  the  other  and,  therefore,  not  a 
comparison  of  percentages.  Gamble  thus  found  that,  when  facility 
and  tenacity  are  measured  on  an  absolute  time  basis,  those  who  learn 
quickly  are  apt  to  relearn  quickly. 

Gamble  found  that  when  a  series  of  nonsense-syllables  was  learned 
and  relearned  at  the  same  rate  of  presentation  the  fraction  of  the 
learning  time  saved  in  relearning  is  greater  if  the  presentation  rate 
is  neither  very  slow  nor  very  fast.  "When  the  series  are  learned  at 
different  presentation  rates  but  relearned  at  the  same  rate,  the  frac- 
tion of  the  learning  time  saved  is  greater  for  the  series  which  were 
originally  learned  at  the  slow  rate  of  presentation,  unless  the  absolute 
learning  time  of  the  "slow  series"  is  very  small.  Series  which  are 
hard  to  learn  are  more  often  hard  than  easy  to  relearn. 

In  attempting  to  answer  the  question,  how  retention  may  best  be 
gauged,  Gamble  admits  that  no  single  method  is  satisfactory.  She 
objects  to  a  method  of  reproduction  without  fresh  presentation  for 
the  reason  that  if  a  long  time  has  elapsed  since  the  series  was  learned, 
very  many  of  the  subjects  can  actually  reproduce  no  units  whatsoever, 
although  the  series  may  have  left  subliminal  impressions  which  differ 
from  subject  to  subject.  Though  she  thinks  the  method  of  relearning 
is  valuable  to  use  in  conjunction  with  others,  she  points  out  the  im- 
possibility of  distinguishing  the  revival  of  old  impressions  from  a 
genuine  new  learning.  In  the  paper  here  summarized  she  reached  no 
definite  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  best  method  of  testing  retentive- 
ness. 

Pyle,  in  studying  "Retention  as  Related  to  Repetition,"21  used 
for  material  passages  from  an  elementary  book  on  nature  study,  con- 
taining 40  "ideas"  each.  Each  passage  contained  on  an  average  150 
words.  The  subjects  taking  part  in  the  experiment  were  twelve 
graduate  and  senior  college  students.  Pyle's  method  of  presenting 
the  material  to  the  subjects  was  as  follows: 

The  experimenter  read  the  material  to  the  subject.     After  the 

2i  Jour,  of  Ed.  Psych.,  1911,  2,  311. 


HISTORICAL  1 3 

first  reading,  the  subject  gave  orally  as  many  ideas  as  he  could  recall. 
The  experimenter  checked  up  the  record,  recording  the  number  of 
ideas  correctly  reported.  Then  the  material  was  read  a  second  time, 
and  a  second  report  was  given  by  the  subject  and  checked  up  by 
the  experimenter.  The  experiment  was  continued  in  this  manner 
until  the  subject  reported,  in  his  own  words,  every  idea.  The  experi- 
menter having  before  him  a  copy  of  the  material  divided  off  by 
vertical  lines  into  forty  units,  found  it  easy  to  check  up  the  reports 
as  given  orally. 

After  the  lapse  of  24  hours,  the  subjects  were  called  upon  to  repro- 
duce, in  writing,  as  much  of  the  material  as  possible.  The  written 
"ideas"  were  marked  either  "right"  or  "wrong,"  "ideas"  that  were 
partially  correct — that  is,  that  had  a  "kernel"  of  truth — being 
marked  as  correct  if  they  closely  approximated  the  correct  idea; 
rarely,  half-credit  was  given  when  the  variation  from  the  correct 
meaning  was  considerable.  The  material  was  divided  into  such 
small  units,  each  significant  adjective,  adverb  or  expression  being  set 
off  as  a  separate  unit,  that  this  point  gave  little  trouble, — a  subject 
either  reported  the  idea  or  he  did  not. 

The  results  of  Pyle  's  most  extensive  set  of  experiments  are  shown 
in  the  table  below.  Only  four  subjects  were  here  used,  but  each  of 
them  memorized  21  passages  (of  40  "ideas"  each). 


Subject 
C 

To  Learn 

Repetitions 

4.7 

Av.  Pev. 
2.24 

(No.  of  Ideas) 

Retention 

37.5 

Av  Dev. 
2.0 

F 

2.9 

0.78 

38.5 

1.7 

K 

5.2 

1.40 

34.2 

4.6 

J 

3.6 

1.90 

36.7 

3.2 

Ave.     4.1 

36/T 

The  results  as  shown  by  this  table  show  no  great  difference  in 
amount  retained  between  the  fast  learners  and  the  slow  learners. 
What  little  difference  there  is  would  seem  to  be  in  favor  of  the  fast 
learners.  It  will  be  noted,  however,  that  we  can  only  say  that  they 
retain  more  absolutely.  It  is  possible  that  had  Pyle  allowed  his  sub- 
jects to  relearn  the  material  previously  memorized — obtaining  his 
"amount  retained"  by  dividing  the  time  of  second  learning  by  the 
time  of  first  learning — he  might  have  found  that  the  slow  learners, 
although  remembering  absolutely  less,  could  relearn  what  they  had 
forgotten  in  a  smaller  percentage  of  their  original  learning-time 
than  would  be  required  by  the  fast  learners. 

By  the  absolute  method,  however,  Pyle  is  probably  correct  in  his 
conclusion  that  "the  slow  learner  certainly  has  no  advantage  in 
retention  over  the  fast  learner. ' '    It  should  be  understood,  however, 


14:      DELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  SETENTIYENESS 

that  no  general  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  so  few  subjects,  and 
although  in  general  Pyle's  eight  other  subjects  bear  out  the  same  con- 
clusion, they  do  not  do  so  unanimously.  However,  Pyle's  later  study22 
of  600  school  children  shows  a  high  correlation  of  learning  capacity, 
as  measured  by  immediate  memory,  with  retention,  as  determined  by 
amount  retained  5  weeks  later.  This  extensive  study  confirms  his 
earlier  intensive  study,  and  his  conclusions  may  be  stated  as  follows: 
A  slow  learner  with  more  time  and  repetitions  spent  in  learning  does 
not  retain  more,  absolutely,  than  the  faster  learner  who  uses  less 
time  and  fewer  repetitions. 

In  1911,  Busemann,  in  an  article  entitled  "Lernen  und  Be- 
halten,"23  published  results  of  several  years'  work  on  various  aspects 
of  the  memory  problem.  Only  a  small  portion  of  this  work,  however, 
throws  light  on  the  relation  of  quickness  of  learning  to  retentiveness. 
His  experiments  were  performed  on  school  children  ranging  in  age 
from  12  to  18  years.  As  material,  he  used  lists  of  various  parts  of 
speech  (nouns,  adjectives,  etc.)  and  simple  syllables.  From  his  re- 
sults he  concludes  that  of  two  individuals  the  one  who  takes  the 
greater  amount  of  time  in  memorizing  a  series  of  words  will  require 
less  time,  relatively,  in  relearning  them. 

In  performing  his  experiments  Busemann  used  two  of  the  various 
methods  described  below  (page  18),  the  method  of  complete  mem- 
orization (Ersparnisverfahren),  and  the  method  of  right  associates 
(Treffermethode).  He  does  not  feel  that  his  experiments  with  the 
first  method  can  answer  the  question  as  to  whether  the  quick  learner 
also  forgets  quickly.  He  considers  the  "  Treffermethode "  the  one  to 
use  in  answering  this  question,  but  does  not  feel  that  with  this  method 
he  performed  a  sufficient  number  of  experiments  to  warrant  his 
making  any  general  statement.  His  results,  however,  as  far  as  they 
go,  would  seem  to  point  against  the  assumption  that  it  is  the  quick 
learners  who  forget  quickly.  In  summing  up  his  work  on  this  subject 
he  says  "it  has  not  yet  been  proven  that  a  greater  ability  to  learn 
corresponds  to  a  smaller  ability  to  retain ; — on  the  contrary  it  is  prob- 
ably true  that  the  good  learner  is  at  the  same  time  a  good  retainer." 

Miss  Norsworthy ,  in  an  article  entitled  ' '  Acquisition  as  Related  to 
Retention,"24  presents  some  very  interesting  results.  The  material 
she  used  as  well  as  her  method  of  experimentation  were  different  from 
any  that  we  have  thus  far  discussed.  As  subjects  she  used  83  students 
in  educational  psychology.  The  material  used  was  a  German-English 
vocabulary  of  1,200  words.    Each  student  studied  twenty  minutes  for 

22  Jour,  of  Ed.  Psych,,  1913,  4,  61. 

23  Zeit.  fur  angewandte  Psych.,   1911,  5,  211. 
z*Jour.  of  Ed.  Psych.,   1912,  3,  214. 


HISTORICAL  15 

five  days,  memorizing  as  many  of  the  English  equivalents  of  the  Ger- 
man words  as  possible.  Two  days  were  then  allowed  to  elapse,  when 
each  student  reviewed  the  list  of  words  that  he  had  succeeded  in 
"memorizing"  during  the  previous  five  days.  Two  days  more  were 
then  allowed  to  elapse,  when  the  work  was  again  reviewed.  At  the 
first  meeting  of  the  class  after  the  above  three  study  periods  were 
over,  they  were  asked  to  write  the  English  equivalents  of  a  certain 
50  German  words  that  were  presented  to  them,  and  that  had  occurred 
in  the  list  of  German  words  they  had  succeeded  in  previously  mem- 
orizing. From  the  results  the  percentage  remembered  could  then 
be  ascertained.  One  month  after  this  test,  another  list  of  50  words, 
chosen  from  those  that  remained,  was  presented  to  the  subject  with 
the  request,  as  before,  to  write  down  as  many  of  the  English  equiva- 
lents as  possible.  In  like  manner,  the  percentage  remembered  of  these 
50  German  words  was  ascertained. 

Norsworthy  found  that  the  average  per  cent,  remembered  in  the 
first  test  was  63,  and  that  the  average  per  cent,  remembered  in  the 
second  test,  one  month  later,  was  practically  the  same,  being  62. 
From  these  averages  she  found  the  deviation,  either  -f-  or  — ,  for  each 
of  her  83  subjects.  The  average  deviation  from  the  median  for  the 
six  subjects  learning  700  words  or  over,  was  + 14,  whereas  for  the 
13  subjects  who  learned  only  300  words  or  under,  the  average  devia- 
tion from  the  median  was  — 17.  In  other  words,  the  quickest 
learners,  who  had  mastered  a  vocabulary  of  over  700  words  in  a  fixed 
time,  retained  a  larger  fraction  than  the  slowest  learners  were  able  to  I 
retain  of  their  much  smaller  vocabulary,  learned  in  the  same  time. 
With  the  second  test  the  difference  was  even  more  striking.  The 
upper  half  of  the  class,  in  respect  to  size  of  vocabulary  learned,  re- 
membered in  the  first  test,  on  the  average,  70  per  cent.,  the  lower  half 
only  52  per  cent.  The  Pearson  coefficient,  for  the  whole  class,  between 
the  number  of  words  learned  and  the  average  per  cent,  remembered 
is  .41  for  the  first  test  and  .50  for  the  second  test.  In  short,  Nors- 
worthy finds  a  high  positive  correlation  between  rate  of  learning  and 
retention — a  correlation  that  is  considerably  higher  than  that  obtained 
by  any  of  the  investigators  whose  work  we  have  already  examined. 
This,  however,  is  probably  due,  not  only  to  the  method  she  used — the 
time  remaining  constant  but  the  amount  learned  varying — but  also 
to  the  nature  of  her  material.  This  is  not  meant  as  a  criticism.  In 
fact  it  is  probable  that  the  use  of  such  material  as  a  German-English 
vocabulary,  especially  when  used  in  the  manner  chosen  by  Nors- 
worthy, is  far  better,  than  the  use  of  such  material  as  nonsense- 
syllables,  if  we  mean  by  ' '  memory ' '  such  memory  as  occurs  in  every- 
day life  and  especially  in  the  school  room. 


16      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIFENESS 

Norsworthy 's  method  of  keeping  the  time  constant,  but  allowing 
the  amount  learned  to  vary,  has  numerous  advantages.  It  frees  the 
learner  from  the  responsibility  of  having  to  decide  when  he  thinks 
that  the  material  has  been  thoroughly  memorized — "a  responsibility 
that  brings  a  very  varying  personal  equation  into  the  problem.  It 
also  frees  the  investigator  from  the  burden  of  making  a  fair  allow- 
ance for  imperfectly  learned  material."25 

In  summing  up  the  results  of  these  various  investigators,  it  is 
perhaps  fair  to  say  that  they  have  found  in  the  main,  and  other  things 
being  equal,  the  individuals  who  learn  the  quickest  to  remember  the 
longest,  *.  e.,  to  be  the  best  retainers.  Muller  and  Schumann  found 
that  the  quick  learners  forgot  more,  but  were  able  to  relearn  what 
they  had  forgotten  in  a  shorter  time  than  the  slow  learners.  An 
examination  of  their  data  shows  that,  relatively  speaking,  there  is 
not  much  difference  between  the  quick  and  the  slow  learner.  White- 
head believes  that  the  slow  learner  is  a  better  retainer,  but  from  the 
data  he  gives  it  is  difficult  to  see  just  how  he  arrives  at  this  conclu- 
sion. Norsworthy,  on  the  other  hand,  obtains  a  very  high  positive 
correlation.  Working  with  a  German-English  vocabulary  she  finds 
that  the  last  quarter  of  her  class  retain  only  two  thirds  as  much  as 
the  first  quarter.  Ogden  and  Henderson  working  with  meaningful 
material  unite  in  finding  that  as  a  rule  the  quickest  learner  is  the 
best  retainer.  Pyle  is  somewhat  more  conservative  but  says  that  the 
fast  learner  is  certainly  at  no  disadvantage  in  retention. 

With  most  of  his  subjects,  Busemann  finds  that  rapid  learning 
means  good  retention.     Gamble,   dividing  her  classes  into  halves, 
quarters,  etc.,  after  much  the  same  manner  as  Norsworthy,  obtained 
1  in  the  long  run  a  positive  correlation. 

In  the  following  pages,  which  deal  with  the  special  research  that 
it  is  the  object  of  this  paper  to  present,  an  attempt  will  be  made  to 
prove  that  on  the  problem  in  question  no  general  law  or  conclusion 
can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of  any  single  material  or  method.  We  will 
endeavor  to  prove  that  not  only  do  different  methods  give  different 
results,  but  we  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  with  the  same  data  it  is 
possible  to  draw  contrary  conclusions  by  dealing  with  the  data  in 
different  ways. 

25  Op.  cit. 


CHAPTER   II 

METHODS    EMPLOYED 

The  Problem  Stated 

The  experiments,  which,  with  their  results  and  the  various  meth- 
ods of  dealing  with  same,  it  is  the  special  object  of  this  paper  to  dis- 
cuss, may  be  briefly  stated  as  consisting  in  the  learning,  or  "mem- 
orizing" of  certain  materials,  allowing  a  definite  number  of  days  to 
elapse,  and  then  measuring  retention  by  one  or  more  of  the  methods 
mentioned  later  in  the  chapter.  In  this  way  a  fairly  accurate  idea 
was  obtained  of  each  subject's  retentiveness,  and  by  comparing  this 
with  the  time  taken  for  the  initial  learning,  we  arrive  at  a  fairly 
accurate  idea  of  the  relation  of  each  individual 's  quickness  of  learn- 
ing to  his  retentiveness. 

So  varied  were  the  materials  used  and  so  different  the  ages,  con- 
ditions, intellectual  standing,  etc.,  of  the  subjects  experimented  on, 
that  many  results  were  obtained  that  have  been  considered  sufficiently 
valuable  to  warrant  mention  although  they  were  not  the  especial  ob- 
ject of  the  research,  and  in  many  cases  have  no  direct  relation  to  the 
problem.  Besides  the  so-called  "normal"  subjects,  state  prison  con- 
victs and  asylum  patients  were  tested.  The  latter,  over  200  in  num- 
ber, give  results  so  complex  in  character  that  they  shall  be  considered 
only  very  briefly. 

Our  results  obtained  show  not  only  the  relation  between  quickness 
of  learning  and  retentiveness,  but  also  the  relative  amount  of  for- 
getting after  different  intervals;  the  relation  between  memory  for 
logical  trains  of  thought  and  for  lists  of  syllables  or  digits ;  the  effect 
of  age,  sex  and  training  on  rapidity  of  learning  and  remembering; 
and  a  comparison  of  the  amount  actually  retained  by  each  subject 
with  what  he  can  reproduce  after  one  reading. ' 

Methods  of  Experiment 

The  main  difficulty  that  one  encounters  in  investigating  such  a 
problem  as  this  is  to  determine  which  of  the  various  possible  methods 
and  materials  shall  be  used.  To  use  all  methods  and  all  materials 
would  involve  too  great  a  labor  for  any  one  experimenter.  Three 
methods  were  used  in  this  research.  Since  each  method  is  frequently 
spoken  of  and  referred  to,  it  was  deemed  best  to  give  each  one  some 

17 


18      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 

distinctive    appellation,    and    I    have    named    them    "Method    1," 
"Method  2"  and  "Method  3."    Briefly  stated  these  methods  are  as 
follows : 
Method  1. — Reproduction,  as  far  as  possible,  of  the  material  originally 

learned  without  fresh  presentation. 
Method  2. — Reproduction,  as  far  as  possible  after  a  single  presen- 
tation. 
Method  3. — Supplying  the  subject  with  the  original  material  and 
taking  his  time  for  relearning  it. 

We  shall  now  consider  each  of  these  methods  in  detail. 

Method  1. — The  subject  was  given,  face  downward,  a  sheet  of 
paper  on  which  were  typewritten  20  nonsense-syllables.1  He  was  told 
that  he  could  study  these  in  any  way  he  saw  fit,  but  that  as  soon  as  he 
felt  positive  he  could  repeat  them  without  error  he  should  say  "now" 
and  come  to  the  experimenter's  desk.  He  was  advised  not  to  come  up 
before  he  felt  quite  certain  that  he  could  repeat  them  without  error, 
as  the  time  consumed,  if  he  failed  to  give  a  perfect  reproduction, 
would  be  counted  as  part  of  his  "time  for  learning."  To  avoid  com- 
petition, each  subject  was  taken  separately,  although  where  the  op- 
portunity presented  itself,  several  subjects  were  allowed  to  study  in 
one  room,  and  allowed  to  come  to  the  adjoining  room  for  their  hear- 
ing. Instead  of  reciting  his  work,  each  subject  was  allowed,  if  he 
preferred,  to  write  it  down. 

The  question  will  naturally  arise :  What  was  done  when  the  sub- 
ject came  up  for  examination  and  made  numerous  mistakes?  To  this 
we  can  only  say  that  such  was  seldom  the  case,  it  being  thoroughly 
impressed  on  the  subject's  mind  that  he  must  be  sure  he  could  repeat 
his  material  perfectly  before  coming  up  for  his  recitation.  Where 
several  serious  mistakes  were  made  the  subject  was  always  sent  back 
to  continue  his  work  of  memorizing.  But  where  only  one  or  two 
minor  errors  were  made  it  was  thought  best  to  deduct  for  these  in  as 
fair  and  scientific  a  way  as  possible,  rather  than  send  the  subject  back. 
This  may  not  seem  strictly  accurate  and  scientific,  but  of  two  evils  it 
was  thought  to  be  the  lesser.  Otherwise  a  subject  whose  time  was  15 
minutes  for  the  nonsense-syllables  might  have  been  30  minutes  had  he 
been  sent  back  to  correct  the  single  minor  error  made. 

The  material  having  thus  been  learned,  a  definite  time  interval2 
was  allowed  to  elapse  after  which  each  subject  was  called  upon  to  re- 
produce in  writing  as  much  of  the  material  as  possible.  It  is  in  this 
reproduction  that  we  have  "Method  1."    No  especial  directions  were 

1  In  explaining  these  three  methods  we  shall  speak  only  of  nonsense  syllables. 
Other  materials  were  also  used,  as  will  be  explained  below. 

-  This  varied  in  the  different  experiments  from  1  day  to  10  weeks. 


METHODS  EMPLOYED  19 

given  for  "Method  1,"  other  than  requesting  that  each  subject  write 
down  as  much  of  the  original  as  he  could  remember,  using  the  original 
words  whenever  he  was  able.  He  was  also  told  that  where  he  could 
remember  nothing  but  the  "gist"  of  the  passage,3  he  was  to  "put 
that  down." 

Method  2. — Method  2  was  made  to  follow  immediately  upon 
Method  1.  The  directions  read  to  the  subjects  for  this  method  were 
as  follows: 

"You  have  just  tried  to  reproduce  from  memory  a  set  of  nonsense- 
syllables  that  you  learned  one  week  ago.  You  probably  have  a  fair 
idea  as  to  the  correctness  of  your  paper.  I  shall  now  read  for  you  the 
original  set  of  nonsense-syllables  and  shall  ask  you  to  again  write  out 
the  list  so  far  as  you  are  able. ' ' 

This  method,  that  I  have  designated  as  "Method  2,"  is  to  my 
mind  one  of  the  most  satisfactory.  Unfortunately  it  was  not  used 
with  the  first  group  of  subjects  (1907-08). 

Method  3. — Method  3  was  made  to  follow  immediately  on  Method 
2.  The  directions  read  to  the  subjects  for  this  method  were  as 
follows : 

"You  have  tried  to  reproduce  in  writing  a  set  of  20  nonsense- 
syllables  that  you  memorized  one  week  ago  and  which,  after  one  hear- 
ing, you  just  now  endeavored  to  reproduce.  You  undoubtedly  have  a 
fair  idea  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  paper  you  just  handed  me.  I 
shall  now  supply  you  with  the  original  set  of  nonsense-syllables  with 
the  request  that  you  relearn  them,  saying  "now"  when  you  feel  quite 
certain  that  you  can  reproduce  the  entire  set." 

It  will  be  noted,  since  in  "Method  2"  the  original  material  is  read 
to  the  subject,  that  he  does  not  enter  upon  "Method  3"  with  as  much 
ignorance  of  the  material,  as  if  "Method  2"  had  been  omitted.  In 
view  of  this,  in  some  of  the  later  experiments,  a  separate  series  of 
syllables  (or  other  material)  was  used  for  "Method  3,"  and  this,  of 
course,  necessitated  the  memorizing  of  two  distinct  sets  of  syllables 
in  the  first  place — one  for  Methods  1  and  2,  and  another  for  Method  3. 

The  writer  is  aware  that  these  methods  are  open  to  criticism.  In 
the  first  place  no  one  of  the  three  methods  is  sufficient  to  answer  the 
problem,  and  in  averaging  the  results  obtained  by  the  three  methods, 
it  is  a  question  which  method  to  give  the  most  weight.  At  the  outset 
of  these  experiments,  Method  3  was  considered  the  most  important, 
and  Method  2  was  ranked  as  being  more  important  than  Method  1. 
It  was  later  thought,  however,  that  the  best  way  of  arriving  at  each 
subject's  general  rctentiveness  was  to  count  each  method  as  equal. 
3  We  are  here  supposing  the  material  was  prose  or  poetry. 


20      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

We  shall  now,  taking  one  method  at  a  time,  consider  the  chief  criti- 
cisms that  may  be  raised  against  it. 

Method  1. — It  has  the  advantage  of  getting  directly  at  the  matter 
in  hand,  i.  e.,  of  obtaining  from  each  subject  exactly  what  has  been 
so  well  retained  that  it  can  be  voluntarily  reproduced  after  a  lapse 
of  a  certain  period;  but  it  has  several  disadvantages.  The  chief  of 
these  is  that  reproduction,  without  a  fresh  presentation  of  the  mate- 
rial originally  learned,  reveals  only  the  strongest  of  the  original 
impressions — the  so-called  "supraliminal  associations."  It  can  be 
proved  that  many  of  the  subjects  have  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
material  once  memorized  on  the  "borderland,"  so  to  speak, — material 
that  can  be  entirely  recalled  after  one  further  reading.  Were  our 
investigation  merely  one  dealing  with  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  quickness  of  learning  to  reproductiveness,  we  would  have  to  rank 
Method  1  higher  than  any  other;  but  where  ability  to  retain  rather 
than  ability  to  reproduce  is  the  factor  in  question,  it  is  obvious  that 
we  must  take  into  consideration  the  various  associations  that  are  on 
the  ' '  borderland. ' ' 

Method  1  also  has  the  disadvantage  of  giving  results  that  are  diffi- 
cult of  measurement.  Very  frequently,  in  an  attempted  reproduction 
of  material  once  memorized,  the  subject  (if  he  is  able  to  recall  the 
various  "topics"  and  "subtopics"  and  the  "thought"  of  the  passage 
in  general)  is  apt  to  express  this  "thought"  in  a  greater  number  of 
words  than  existed  in  the  original  passage.  He  is  also  very  apt  to 
introduce  new  thoughts,  thoughts  which  he  may  or  may  not  express  in 
words  that  occurred  in  the  original  passage.  This  introduces  several 
perplexing  factors  which  are  difficult  of  measurement. 

Method  2. — Its  chief  merit  lies  in  the  fact  that  it  endeavors  to  do 
away  with  the  above  criticisms  made  against  Method  1.  To  this  end 
it  endeavors  to  bring  back  the  "subliminal"  associations  by  reading 
the  material  once  to  the  subject  before  asking  for  the  reproduction. 
This  one  "reading"  however,  carries  with  it  its  own  penalty.  A 
single  reading  of  a  passage  of  100  words  consumes  about  one  half 
minute  and  it  is  obvious  that  one  half  minute  to  a  quick  learner 
means  much  more  than  does  one  half  minute  to  a  slow  learner. 

The  second  objection  made  to  Method  1  naturally  applies  also  to 
Method  2,  although  not  to  so  great  a  degree,  for  this  reproduction 
after  hearing  the  passage  read  is  less  likely  to  contain  new  thoughts 
and  extra  words  than  if  the  passage  had  not  been  read  at  all. 

Method  3. — In  utilizing  the  results  of  this  method,  the  plan  of 
Ebbinghaus  was  followed,  the  time  for  relearning  being  compared 
with  the  time  of  the  original  learning,  and  the  time  saved  in  relearn- 
ing, especially  the  per  cent,  of  the  original  time  saved,  being  taken  as 


METHODS  EMPLOYED  21 

the  measure  of  retention,  while  the  time  spent  in  relearning,  ex- 
pressed as  a  per  cent,  of  the  time  of  the  original  learning,  gives  the 
complementary  measure  of  the  "amount  forgotten."  The  chief  dis- 
advantage to  this  method  is  that,  in  relearning,  it  is  impossible  to  dis- 
tinguish facility  in  forming  fresh  associations  from  retention  of  sub- 
liminal associations.  Another  disadvantage  is  that  it  does  not  get 
directly  at  the  amount  and  nature  of  the  matter  retained  by  each 
subject.  It  is  thus  a  serious  question  if  the  method  is  a  fair  one  to 
use 'in  settling  the  question  in  hand.  For  with  this  method  the  sub- 
ject is  not  called  upon  to  give  exactly  "what  he  remembers"  at  the 
end  of  three  weeks,  but  is  first  given  the  material  to  relearn,  and 
then  asked  for  a  reproduction.  A  factor  is  thus  introduced  that  is 
difficult  of  measurement,  for  this  "relearning"  may  recall  more  to 
the  mind  of  one  subject  than  another,  both  of  whom  might  otherwise 
have  given  equal  results  by  the  first  method.  It  may,  however,  be 
justly  contended  that  this  factor  is  desirable  since  our  problem  is  one 
dealing  with  retentiveness  and  not  with  ability  to  recall. 

Another  criticism  that  may  be  made  against  Method  3  is  this:  it 
may  be  said  that  it  is  incorrect  to  rate  two  men  as  having  the  same 
degree  of  retentiveness,  one  of  whom  takes  25  minutes  to  learn  a  pass- 
age and  three  weeks  later  takes  5  minutes,  while  the  other  takes  10 
minutes  and  three  weeks  later  takes  only  2  minutes.  It  may  be  true 
that  these  figures  prove  both  men  to  have  saved  four  fifths  of  the  time 
originally  spent,  and  that  therefore  the  amount  of  the  original  that 
each  has  forgotten  is  one  fifth,  but  this  hardly  seems  fair,  when  we 
consider  that  the  second  man  takes  only  2  minutes  to  do  his  relearn- 
ing as  against  the  5  minutes  needed  by  the  first  man.  Again  it  is 
possible  that  the  first  man  had  forgotten  the  material  so  completely  at 
the  end  of  three  weeks,  that  not  only  was  he  unable  to  recall  any  of 
it,  but  he  also  retained  practically  none  of  it,  and  that  the  second 
learning  was  for  him  practically  a  memorizing  of  entirely  new  mate- 
rial, and  that  this  time  he  took  only  5  minutes  because  he  was  in 
exceptionally  good  condition.  In  fact  when  the  material  used  con- 
sists of  digits,  we  would  expect  the  time  for  relearning  to  be,  on  the 
average,  nearly  as  great  as  the  original  time.4 

However,  taking  everything  into  consideration  Method  3  has  many 
merits  and  gives  us  information  that  neither  Method  1  nor  Method  2 
is  capable  of.  It  also  has  the  advantage  of  supplying  us  with  a  very 
easy  and  accurate  measurement,  namely,  time. 

One  objection  carried  by  Method  3  is  that  it  takes  no  allowance  for 

*  In  several  cases  the  second  time  was  not  only  equal  but  even  greater.    This 

is  ascribable  either  to  a  poorer  mental  condition  of  the  subject  or  to  distraction 

of  some  sort.  V  ^  R  *  h  , 

OF  ■ 

U*JVP 

.0  OP 


22      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  SETENTIVENESS 

the  partial  relearning  that  the  preceding  methods  (1  and  2)  have 
given.  Method  3  is  supposed  to  show,5  besides  other  things,  the  actual 
time  that  is  taken  for  relearning  the  material.  It  is  obvious,  there- 
fore, that  before  starting  Method  3,  the  subject  should  not  only  not 
have  thought  of  the  material  during  the  period  that  has  elapsed  from 
the  day  it  was  originally  learned,  but  he  should  not  be  allowed  to 
"review"  it  just  previous  to  starting  Method  3.  It  is  just  these 
things,  however,  that  methods  1  and  2  do — for  in  the  one,  the  subject 
endeavors  to  recall  as  much  of  the  material  as  possible,  while  in  the 
other  he  is  allowed  a  "review."  This,  however,  is  not  a  criticism 
against  Method  3,  per  se,  but  a  criticism  against  the  way  in  which  the 
method  was  here  used.  Eectification  was  made  in  two  ways :  either 
(1)  a  separate  and  distinct  material  was  used  for  Method  3,  or  (2) 
— the  time  taken  for  the  reading  of  the  passage  (in  Method  2)  was 
added  to  the  time  given  in  column  3.  [In  some  cases  the  time  taken 
for  the  "attempted  reproduction"  was  also  added.]  It  will  be  noted, 
however,  in  those  tables  where  this  has  been  done,  that  the  addition 
of  a  minute  or  two  throughout  column  3,  makes  practically  no  differ- 
ence in  the  final  correlation. 

One  criticism  that  might  be  made  of  all  the  methods  rather  than 
of  any  one  method  in  particular,  is  that  an  investigation  of  this  sub- 
ject, to  be  thorough,  should  involve  the  use  of  various  time  intervals. 
For  example,  instead  of  merely  allowing  10  weeks  to  elapse  between 
the  time  of  initial  learning  and  time  of  relearning,  we  should  also  use 
intervals  of  one  day,  one  week,  six  months,  etc.  Proof  that  the  length 
of  the  time  intervals  allowed  to  elapse  should  be  seriously  considered 
is  seen  in  the  fact  that  with  most  groups  of  subjects  the  correlation 
of  quickness  of  learning  with  retentiveness  depends  partly  on  the 
length  of  the  time  interval. 

The  complete  solution  of  a  problem  of  this  nature  should  take  into 
consideration  all  the  mental  performances  of  the  subject,  and  should 
involve  the  use  of  all  the  senses,  since  each  one  may  be  said  to  have 
its  own  "memories."  Limited  experiments,  such  as  these  herein 
described,  can  answer  the  question  only  in  a  limited  degree. 

Materials  Used 

Five  main  kinds  of  material  were  employed  on  all  of  the  regular 
subjects.  Some  of  these  were  omitted  or  abbreviated  in  the  case  of 
the  insane. 

The  chief  materials  were  digits,  nonsense-syllables,  words,  prose 
and  poetry.    Four  sets  of  each  of  these  were  employed.    The  specifica- 

6  See  column  3  of  any  of  the  tables. 


METHODS  EMPLOYED  23 

tions  of  the  materials  chosen,  and  their  method  of  selection,  are  de- 
scribed below  under  their  respective  headings. 

(a)  Digits. — In  the  regular  set  of  experiments  the  number  of 
digits  used  was  20.  With  one  group  of  16  individuals,  series  of  40 
were  also  used.  The  method  of  procedure  in  making  the  list  of  digits 
was  as  follows : 

Small  cards,  bearing  the  digits  from  0  to  9  inclusive,  were  placed 
in  a  box  and  shaken  up.  They  were  then  taken  out,  one  at  a  time,  and 
if  the  digit  drawn  violated  none  of  the  rules  given  below,  it  was 
written  down  as  one  of  the  list.  In  any  case  before  drawing  another 
digit,  the  digit  previously  drawn  was  put  back  in  the  box  and  the  box 
shaken. 
Rules : 

1.  The  digits  must  be  drawn  by  chance. 

2.  No  digit  may  be  allowed  to  follow  another  that  is  one  half  as 
much,  or  twice  as  much,  as  the  first,  e.  g.,  6  may  not  follow  3.  nor  3 
follow  6. 

3.  No  digit  may  follow  another  that  is  only  one  more  or  one  less 
than  the  digit  in  question,  e.  g.,  4  may  not  follow  3  nor  3  follow  4. 

4.  No  three  digits  may  be  allowed  to  come  together  that  have  the 
same  difference  between  them,  e.  g.,  3-5-7. 

5.  No  two  digits  may  come  together  that  have  already  appeared 
together  in  the  list. 

6.  Since  digits,  like  nonsense-syllables,  words,  etc.,  are  generally 
learned  rhythmically  in  groups  of  four,  no  digit  may  start  a  group 
that  had  previously  been  used  to  start  a  similar  group,  nor  may  the 
final  digit  of  a  group  (of  four)  be  permitted  to  stand  if  it  has  already 
been  the  final  digit  of  a  preceding  group  (of  four),  e.  g.,  if  7-1-5-2 
have  occurred  once  as  one  group,  no  other  group  in  the  same  series 
may  start  with  7  or  end  with  2. 

(6)  Nonsense-syllables. — The  diverse  results  that  have  been  ob- 
tained by  different  experimenters  using  nonsense-syllables  as  mate- 
rial can  be  partly  explained  by  the  difference  in  the  syllables  selected, 
i.  e.,  their  degree  of  "  nonsensity. "  The  nonsense  syllables  employed 
by  Ebbinghaus  should  hardly  be  called  by  this  name  as  many  of  them 
are,  in  German  as  well  as  English,  practically  words.  Those  used  by 
Muller  and  Schumann  were  selected  with  greater  care  and  are  on  the 
whole  much  better.  A  really  good  set  of  nonsense-syllables  is  ex- 
tremely difficult  of  formation.  My  own  method  of  making  the  series 
of  12  and  20  was  as  follows : 

Out  of  a  list  of  90  nonsense-syllables,6  three  competent  judges 

6  There  are  only  about  90  fairly  good  nonsense  syllables  for  English-speaking 
persons. 


24      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 

selected  forty-five  that  to  their  minds  "carried  the  fewest  objections." 
These  forty-five  were  then  placed  in  a  box  and,  by  following  certain 
rules  similar  to  those  laid  down  for  digits,  three  sets  of  20  were 
selected.  Here,  as  with  the  digits,  if  the  syllable  drawn  violated  any 
of  the  following  rules,  it  was  thrown  back  and  another  selected  in  its 
place. 

The  rules  observed  in  the  arrangement  of  the  nonsense-syllables 
were  as  follows: 

1.  Syllables  must  be  drawn  by  "chance." 

2.  Initial  consonants  may  not  be  the  same  unless  separated  by 
two  or  more  syllables. 

3.  End  consonants  may  not  be  the  same  unless  separated  by  two 
or  more  syllables. 

4.  Vowels  may  not  be  the  same  unless  separated  by  two  or  more 
syllables. 

5.  The  initial  consonant  of  one  syllable  may  not  be  the  same  as  the 
final  consonant  of  the  preceding  syllable. 

6.  There  may  be  no  repetition  of  the  same  syllable  in  any  one 
series. 

(c)  Words. — In  the  regular  experiments  only  nouns  were  used. 
These  were  drawn  by  chance  from  200,  previously  selected,  and  ar- 
ranged in  lists  of  20.  Whenever  the  word  drawn,  made,  with  the 
preceding  word,  an  association  that  was  considered  "quite  obvious" 
by  two  of  the  three  judges,  the  word  was  thrown  back.  Of  the  four 
sets  of  words  used,  two  were  formed  entirely  of  words  of  three  letters. 

(d)  Prose. — Several  passages  of  different  nature  and  content 
were  chosen,  as  follows : 

1.  A  passage  of  100  words  from  Kipling's  "Kim"  starting  with 
"The  diamond  bright  dawn." 

2.  A  passage  of  100  words  from  the  preface  of  Haeckel  's  ' '  Riddle 
of  the  Universe, ' '  starting  with  ' '  The  present  study. ' ' 

3.  A  passage  of  100  words  from  Kant's  "Critique,"  beginning 
with  "Time  is  nothing  but  the  form  of  the  internal  sense." 

4.  A  passage  of  100  words  from  Franklin's  "Autobiography," 
beginning  with  "But  I  soon  found." 

5.  Two  sets  of  unconnected  sentences,  each  set  comprising  in  all 
100  words. 

(e)  Poetry. — Two  selections,  each  containing  four  stanzas  of  four 
lines. 

Methods  of  Scoring 

The  method  of  scoring  the  various  reproductions  of  the  material 
memorized — a  matter  of  prime  importance  in  an  investigation  of  this 
nature — will  now  be  considered  in  detail. 


METHODS  EMPLOYED  25 

(a)  Digits. — Method  3  needs  no  comment  as  to  scoring.     It  is 
obvious  that  where  complete  relearning  is  used,  the  only  measurement 
we  have  to  consider  is  that  of  time.    In  methods  1  and  2,  however,  we 
must  take  into  consideration  the  various  mistakes,  be  they  of  omis- 
sion, insertion  of  wrong  material,  or  wrong  order.    In  my  earliest  ex- 
periments, I  used  the  method  devised  by  Ebbinghaus,7  scoring  every 
omission  as  one  error,  every  displacement  from  the  correct  position  in 
the  series  by  two  or  three  places  as  0.5  error,  and  every  displacement 
by  four  or  more  places  as  one  error.     The  subjects  were  then  com- 
pared with  respect  to  their  error-score  in  series  of  each  length  sepa- 
rately.   I  found  however,  upon  correlating  the  scores  thus  obtained, 
that  my  results  were  practically  the  same  as  when  using  the  much 
simpler  method  used  by  Dr.  Whitley.8    "The  chief  difficulty,"  says 
Whitley,  "  in  comparing  people's  work  on  memory,  lies  in  the  varia- 
ble methods  of  scoring,  especially  with  regard  to  transpositions.     If 
the  order  is  76431528  and  a  subject  writes  7463  .  .  .,  some  experi- 
menters call  it  two  errors  because  both  the  4  and  the  6  are  in  the 
wrong  place ;  other  experimenters  call  it  one  error  because  by  making 
one  change — by  'lifting'  the  6  over  the  4,  it  is  corrected.    The  latter 
method    seems    preferable.      Supposing    a    subject    were    to    write 
87643152,  eight  errors  would  be  scored  by  the  first  method  since  each 
numeral  is  misplaced ;  by  the  latter  method  only  one  error  is  scored, 
since  one  change  would  set  all  right. ' '    Thus  a  misplacement  is  rated 
by  Whitley  practically  the  same  as  an  omission.    For  example,  a  sub- 
ject writing  76-31528,  would,  by  the  first  method,  be  scored  one  error 
for  omitting  the  4,  but  two  errors  if  he  placed  it  before  the  6.    By 
Whitley's  method,  however,  he  is,  by  counting  misplacements  and 
omissions  as  equal,  scored  only  one  error.     This  method  as  used  by 
Whitley  is  the  method  that  was  used  in  scoring  the  results  given  in 
the  following  tables.     Each  numeral  that  was  given  correctly  was 
scored  1,  and  if  it  was  in  the  right  place — either  relative  or  absolute,9 
it  was  scored  1  more.    This  method  may  at  first  sight  seen  crude,  but 
many  were  tried  and  the  more  elaborate  ones  were  discarded. 

7  H.  Ebbinghaus,  "Ueber  eine  neue  Methode  zur  Priifung  geistiger  Fiihig- 
keiten  und  ihre  Anwendung  bei  Schulkindern,"  in  Z.  P.,  1907,  13,  401-457. 

s  "Tests  for  Individual  Differences,"  Archives  of  Psychol.,  1911,  No.  19. 

9  I  counted  a  digit  to  be  correct  as  to  its  relative  position  provided  it  was 
preceded  by  the  correct  digit.  My  reasons  for  using  the  preceding  digit  instead 
of  the  following  digit  in  determining  correctness  of  position  are  given  in  the  fol- 
lowing sub-section  entitled  ' '  Nonsense  Syllables. "  If  in  place  of  a  digit  the 
subject  merely  drew  a  line  thus  indicating  that  he  was  aware  of  an  omission,  he 
was  given  credit  for  thus  preserving  accuracy  of  position  for  the  digit  following. 


26      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

Examples  of  the  Scoring  of  Series  of  Digits  are  Shown  Below 

Series  studied   5  0947152638047381  629 

Eeprod.  by  subj.  A.  F... 5  0947-5380473629 

Score  2  2222       2  1  2  2  2  2  2  1  2  2  Total  28 

Eeprod.  by  subj.  J.  M... 5  09471543680259646129 

Score 2  2  2  2  2  2  2       112  2  1.  1  2  2    Total  26 

Eeprod.  by  subj.  M.  K.. 5094715263807-381629 

Score 2222222222221       2  2  2  2  2  2        Total  37 

(i&)  Nonsense-syllables. — "With  nonsense-syllables  also,  Method  3 
gives  no  difficulty  as  far  as  scoring  is  concerned,  but  with  Methods 
1  and  2  we  encounter  the  same  difficulties  that  confront  us  with 
digits,  since  omissions  and  misplacements  are  usually  numerous. 
Here  also  I  first  tried  several  of  the  more  elaborate  methods  includ- 
ing that  of  Ebbinghaus,  but  discarded  them  for  one  of  my  own  make. 
This  method,  while  easy  and  quick,  proved,  upon  comparison  with  the 
results  obtained  by  the  more  elaborate  method,  to  be  fully  as  accurate. 
Briefly  stated  the  method  is  as  follows :  Each  correct  letter,  provided 
the  syllable  is  in  the  correct  position,™  receives  a  score  of  1,  and  the 
syllable,  for  being  in  the  correct  position,  receives  an  extra  score  of  1. 
Thus  a  perfect  syllable  in  the  correct  position  receives  a  score  of  4. 
A  syllable  correct  in  itself,  but  not  correct  in  position,  receives  a 
score  of  only  3.  If  the  position  is  correct,  and  the  syllable  has  two  of 
the  three  letters  correct11  it  is  scored  3.  If  two  of  the  three  letters  of 
the  syllable  are  correct  but  the  position  of  the  syllable  itself  is  not 
correct,  either  relative  or  absolute,  it  receives  no  score  at  all.  There- 
fore, unless  position  is  correct,  the  separate  letters  do  not  count  unless 
all  are  correct.12  It  must  be  remembered  that,  as  before  said,  if  a 
syllable  is  correct,  but  is  not  in  the  correct  position,  it  gets  3  and  only 
3  counts,  since  each  syllable  that  is  in  the  correct  position  and  also 
correct  in  itself  receives  a  count  of  4.  The  highest  score,  therefore, 
obtainable  for  a  list  of  20  syllables  is  80. 

The  subjects  were  told  to  draw  a  line  under  the  last  syllable  in 
their  reproduction  if  they  felt  sure  that  it  was  the  last  syllable.  In 
this  way  the  last  syllable,  even  if  it  was  not  preceded  by  the  correct 
syllable,  was  counted  as  being  in  the  right  position  and  given  a  score 
of  4  if  it  was  correct  and  underlined.  It  was  given  a  score  of  4  since 
it  had  the  correct  absolute  position. 

io  "Correct  position"  here,  as  with  digits,  may  mean  correct  relative  posi- 
tion or  correct  absolute  position.  A  syllable  is  in  the  correct  relative  position 
when  it  is  preceded  by  the  correct  syllable,  or  by  a  syllable  of  which  two  letters 
are  correct,  provided  these  letters  themselves  be  in  the  right  order. 

ii  Provided  these  two  letters  themselves  are  in  the  correct  order. 

12  When,  however,  all  three  letters  are  written,  but  not  in  correct  order,  e.  g., 
the  letters  reversed, — the  syllable  receives  a  score  of  1,  but  if  the  position  also  is 
correct,  a  score  of  two. 


METHODS  EMPLOYED 


27 


The  method  of  scoring  is  illustrated  by  the  following  example. 


Liit  of  Syllables 
Studied 

Reproduction  by 
Subject  J.  M. 

S.ores 

vus 

VUS 

4 

YIF 

VIF 

3 

MIV 

JEP 

3 

JEP 

RIL 

VOB 

BOV 

2 

FEG 

SIR 

WOF 

WOL 

3 

TIB 

TID 

3 

NUZ 

BOF 

JED 

KIB 

VEL 

ZID 

BOL 

SEF 

YAB 

KUV 

TEF 

NAD 

Total  score  18 

In  explanation  of  this  scoring,  the  following  remarks  may  be  added. 
VUS  get  4  counts,  being  correct  in  everything.  VIF  gets  only  three 
counts,  since  although  its  position  is  correct,  it  starts  with  "V"  in- 
stead of  "Y. "  JEP  gets  3  counts ;  had  it  been  in  the  correct  position 
it  would  have  gotten  4,  since,  when  a  syllable  is  correct  as  to  its 
letters,  but  in  the  wrong  position  it  is  credited  with  only  3  counts, — 
one  for  each  letter.  RIL  receives  no  score  at  all,  there  being  no  such 
syllable.  BOV  receives  a  score  of  2,  for  it  contains  all  the  letters  that 
occur  in  VOB  and,  moreover,  is  in  the  correct  position,  i.  e.,  where 
VOB  should  be.  SIR  receives  no  score  at  all.  It  is  quite  likely  a 
pure  guess,  and  put  down  merely  to  secure  correctness  of  position  for 
the  two  following  syllables.  We  are  all  the  more  led  to  believe  this 
when  we  perceive  that  the  next  two  syllables,  WOL  and  TID,  have, 
in  each,  two  letters  correct, — their  positions  also  being  correct. 

(c)  Words. — With  words,  method  3  also  gives  no  difficulty,  time 
being  the  only  measurement.  With  methods  1  and  2,  however,  a 
method  similar  to  that  used  with  nonsense-syllables  was  employed.  A 
score  of  1  was  given  if  the  position,  whether  relative  or  absolute, 
was  correct.  Here  also  correctness  of  the  relative  position  was  deter- 
mined by  the  preceding  word.  An  extra  count  was  given  if  any  two 
letters13  were  correct,  provided  that  the  position  of  the  word  was 

13  The  same  rule  was  used  here  as  in  the  ease  of  the  nonsense  syllables  and  the 
two  letters  themselves  had  to  be  in  the  correct  order. 


28      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENT1VENESS 


correct.     If  the  word  was  wholly  correct  it  received  still  an  extra 
count,  making  a  maximum  of  3  counts  for  each  word. 
The  scoring  is  illustrated  by  the  following  case : 


•8  of  Words 
Studied 

Reproduction  by 
Subject  M.  K. 

Score 

TUB 

TUB 

3 

PIN 

HEN 

2 

HEN 

JUG 

2 

BED 

RAT 

LID 

TAN 

GEM 

MUG 

BUD 

CAT 

2 

CAR 

RUG 

2 

MAT 

PEN 

2 

EOD 

BED 

3 

JUG 

GUN 

3 

FOG 

LAD 

SOD 

PEN 

CAT 

BAG 

BOX 

NET 

GUN 

Total  score  19 

This  scoring  may  be  elucidated  by  the  following  remarks.  The 
first  word  TUB  is  given  3  counts,  it  having  two  letters  correct,  it  also 
being  the  correct  word  and  also  being  in  the  correct  position.  HEN 
is  given  a  score  of  2,  it  being  the  correct  word  but  not  in  the  correct 
position.  For  like  reasons  JUG  is  scored  2.  BAT  receives  no  score 
at  all,  although  it  has  two  letters,  "-AT,"  that  are  correct  (they 
being  also  in  the  word  CAT) .  The  word  however  is  not  in  the  proper 
position  either  relative  or  absolute  and  hence  can  receive  no  count  at 
all.  Words  of  this  kind  therefore  receive  a  score  of  2  or  nothing  for 
reasons  given  in  detail  under  nonsense-syllables.  The  fairness  of  this 
rule  is  made  clear  when  we  realize  that  had  the  word  BAT  been  pre- 
ceded by  the  word  PEN,  the  chances  of  BAT  having  been  a  mere 
guess  would  be  greatly  lessened.  TAN  receives  no  count  at  all.  To 
the  next  word  MUG,  one  is  tempted  to  give  a  score  of  1  since  it  con- 
tains the  two  letters  UG  which  are  also  contained  in  JUG.  It  would 
have  received  credit  for  these  two  letters  had  the  word  been  preceded 
by  BOD.  Not  being  preceded  by  BOD  it  is  given  no  count  at  all. 
That  this  is  perfectly  fair  is  in  this  particular  case  very  conveniently 
shown  by  the  appearance  later  on  of  the  word  BUG,  which,  although 
there  is  no  such  word,  is  given  a  score  of  2,  it  being  preceded  by  the 


METHODS  EMPLOYED  29 

correct  word  CAT.  The  two  letters  that  are  correct  in  this  case  are 
R-G  and  although  separated  by  the  wrong  vowel  "U"  they  are  in  the 
proper  order.  PEN  receives  a  score  of  two,  it  having  two  letters  cor- 
rect and  also  being  the  correct  word  itself.  BED  receives  a  score  of 
3,  1  because  it  contains  two  correct  letters,  1  because  it  is  the  correct 
word  itself,  and  1  because  it  is  preceded  by  the  correct  word.  In  this 
case  the  " preceding"  word  is  not  wholly  correct  but  it  contains  two 
correct  letters  and  this  naturally  gives  BED  a  higher  scoring  than 
it  would  have  received  had  it  been  preceded  by  the  word  AXE,  for 
example.  The  last  word  GUN  receives  a  score  of  3,  it  being  in  the 
correct  absolute  position  for  the  reason  that  it  is  underlined,  this 
proving  that  the  subject  knew  it  was  the  last  word. 

(d)  Prose. — The  simplest  method  of  scoring  the  prose  passages 
is  to  grade  the  papers  offhand  on  a  basis  of  10  (or  100)  equaling  per- 
fection. With  this  method,  however,  some  examiners  would  not  con- 
sider that  ' '  perfection ' '  necessarily  required  the  use  of  the  identical 
words  occurring  in  the  original,  nor  might  they  consider  that  it  re- 
quired a  perfectly  correct  order  of  these  words.  With  a  certain 
amount  of  justification,  they  might  say  that  the  only  thing  necessary 
to  get  a  score  of  100  would  be  to  have  a  perfect  reproduction  of  the 
various  ideas  contained  in  the  original  passage, — in  other  words,  a 
practically  perfect  impression  of  the  "content"  of  the  passage.  This 
rather  rough  method  of  scoring  has  been  used  by  several  experi- 
menters. I  used  this  method  for  a  time,  but  soon  gave  it  up  for  the 
more  exact  method  of  Henderson,14  somewhat  modified. 

In  scoring,  Henderson  divided  his  prose  passages  into  "topics," 
"sub-topics,"  "details,"  and  words.  He  was  thus  able  to  score  his 
papers  according  to  the  number  of  "ideas"  and  "parts  of  ideas" 
that  were  retained.  We  shall  first  take  up  his  method  of  scoring  the 
smallest  of  the  subdivisions,  viz.,  words,  and  this  is  best  given  in  a 
quotation  from  Henderson  himself:  "The  scoring  of  words  remem- 
bered might  easily  become  a  complicated  matter.  Doubtless,  the  re- 
producing of  certain  words  means  far  more  power  of  memory  than 
that  of  others.  I  have  used  the  following  system.  All  words  of  the 
original  that  were  reproduced  in  their  former  contexts  were  scored 
full  value.  Commonplace  words,  particularly  articles,  prepositions, 
and  conjunctions,  were  not  scored  when  reproduced  out  of  their  con- 
text. On  the  other  hand,  an  unusual  word  was  regarded  as  remem- 
bered, even  though  it  appeared  in  the  wrong  context.  Occasionally 
a  word  was  evidently  used  because  its  sound  was  somewhat  like  that 
of  one  in  the  original.    A  half  credit  was  here  given.    Words  that 

14  E.    N.    Henderson,    "A    Study    of    Memory    for    Connected    Trains    of 
Thought,"  Psy.  Eev.  Monog.  Supp.,  No.  23,  1903. 


30      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 

were  modified  to  suit  changes  in  construction,  etc.,  were  given  partial 
credit  also. ' ' 

In  defending  his  method  of  analyzing  a  passage  into  the  various 
divisions  mentioned,  Henderson  says:15  "It  must  be  confessed  that 
this  analysis  has  in  it  something  arbitrary.  To  say  that  each  of  the 
detailed  thoughts  thus  indicated  is  equal  in  value  to  every  other  is 
manifestly  absurd.  And  this  is  true  whether  our  estimate  be  based 
on  relative  importance  to  the  thought  in  general  or  on  relative  diffi- 
culty of  recall.  But  it  must  be  granted  that  the  same  objection  could 
be  raised  against  any  endeavor  to  compare  two  mental  conditions 
quantitatively.  However,  as  the  mind  of  the  subject  traveled  over 
the  thought  it  was  trying  to  reproduce,  it  may  be  conceived  to  have 
rested  momentarily  on  each  of  the  details  indicated.  In  general,  the 
better  memories  could  be  expected  to  retain  not  only  the  easily  re- 
membered details,  but  also  the  ones  harder  to  recall,  whereas  the 
poorer  ones  would  retain  only  the  former  class.  In  such  cases  the 
scores  given  can  not  be  challenged  on  the  ground  that  the  lack  of 
equality  between  the  units  renders  the  ranking  of  the  subjects  arbi- 
trary. Placing  different  values  on  the  ideas  or  analyzing  the  units 
differently  might  affect  the  ranking  in  cases  where  the  loss  of  certain 
ideas  is  pitted  against  that  of  different  ones,  but  seldom,  I  am  con- 
fident, could  one  justify  a  valuation  or  an  analysis  so  different  from 
mine  as  to  affect  materially  the  ranking  of  a  student.  Hence,  the 
general  results  of  my  investigation  are,  I  conceive,  not  dependent  on 
the  peculiarities  of  my  scoring. 

"The  scores  given  have  not  been  diminished,  because  of  errors. 
They  are  records  only  of  what  was  retained.  I  have  taken  the  ground 
that  the  erroneous  idea  that  contains  the  suggestion  of  the  true  one 
deserves  a  positive  rather  than  a  negative  score.  It  indicates  a 
thought  corresponding,  however  inaccurately,  to  the  earlier  one. 
Such  ideas  are  given  a  part  of  the  value  of  an  accurate  memory. 
Some  individuals,  it  is  true,  leave  unexpressed  the  hazy  idea  that  they 
fear  is  erroneous.  They  might  suffer  by  comparison  with  cloudier 
minds  that  failed  to  discover  the  presence  of  the  fog.  However,  a 
mind  that  feels  a  certain  idea  to  be  inaccurate  is  usually  able  to  ex- 
press the  part  or  phase  of  the  thought  that  is  accurate,  and  thus 
render  a  true  account  of  what  was  in  the  memory. ' ' 

My  own  method  of  scoring  is  really  nothing  but  a  modification  of 
Henderson's.  The  papers  were  first  marked  on  a  scale  of  100  by 
three  competent  judges.  The  average  of  these  marks  was  then  taken 
and  called  "Judges'  Mark."  The  papers  were  then  scored  by  Hen- 
derson's method,  the  score,  however,  being  converted  into  a  scale  of 
is  Op.  (At.,  p.  33. 


METHODS  EMPLOYED  31 

1-100.  This  was  termed  ''Henderson's  mark."  The  arithmetical 
mean  of  these  two  "marks"  was  then  taken  as  the  final  score.  It 
was  seldom  that  the  two  methods  of  scoring  differed  by  more  than  3. 
In  one  or  two  instances  the  difference  was  as  great  as  5,  though  this 
difference  was  mostly  due  to  the  presence  of  an  introspective  post- 
script that  had  been  added  by  the  subject,  and  which,  while  it  could 
not  be  considered  in  Henderson's  method,  was  evidently  considered 
by  the  judges.  It  was  frequently  clear  that  the  subject  had  a  fair 
idea  of  certain  "thoughts"  that  he  was  unable  to  express, — thoughts 
that  were  evidently  not  expressed  in  words  sufficiently  correct  to 
obtain,  by  Henderson 's  method,  as  high  a  score  as  the  judges  deemed 
them  worthy  of, — for  in  these  cases  the  "Judges'  Mark"  was  inva- 
riably higher  than  "Henderson's  mark." 

The  results  of  this  method  of  scoring  can  be  seen  in  the  following 
examples. 

Passage  Studied. 

The  diamond-bright  dawn  woke  men  and  cows  and  bullocks  together.  Kim 
sat  up  and  yawned,  shook  himself,  and  thrilled  with  delight.  This  was  seeing 
the  world  in  real  truth,  this  was  life  as  he  would  have  it — bustling  and  shouting, 
the  buckling  of  belts,  and  beating  of  bullocks  and  creaking  of  wheels,  lighting  of 
fires  and  cooking  of  food,  and  new  sights  at  every  turn  of  the  approving  eye. 
The  morning  mist  swept  off  in  a  whirl  of  silver;  the  parrots  shot  away  to  some 
distant  river  in  shrieking  green  hosts:  all  the  well  wheels  within  earshot  were  at 
work. 

Keproduction  by  Subject  A.  F. 

The  diamond  bright  dawn  woke  men  and  cows  and  bullocks  together.  Kim 
awoke,  sat  up,  yawned  and  shook  himself.  This  was  life  as  it  should  be,  this  was 
seeing  the  world  in  real  truth.  The  creaking  of  wheels,  the  lowing  of  cattle,  the 
clanking  of  chains,  the  ringing  of  bells  and  new  sights  at  every  turn  of  the  ap- 
proving eye.     The  parrots  shot  off  to  some  far  away  river  in  shrieking  green 

hosts;  the  and  all  the  well  wheels  of  industry  were 

at  work. 

Score,  72. 

Reproduction  by  Subject  J.  M. 

The  diamond  bright  dawn  woke  men,  and  cows  and  bullocks  all  together. 
Kim  sat  up  and  yawned,  shook  himself,  and  thrilled  with  delight.  This  was  see- 
ing life  in  real  truth;  this  was  life  as  he  would  have  it.  The  blowing  of  horns, 
the  lowing  of  cattle,  the  cracking  of  whips,  and  the  creaking  of  wheels. 

(There  was  also  something  about  parrots  flying  across  the  river,  .  .  .  and 
that  everybody  was  at  work.) 

Score,  49. 

Reproduction  by  Subject  M.  K. 

The  diamond  bright  dawn  woke  men,  and ,  and  bullocks  together.    Kim 

awoke  and  sat  up.  "This  was  seeing  the  world  in  truth,  this  was  life  as  he 
would  have  it."     The  buckling  of  belts,  beating  of  bullocks  and  blowing  of 


32     RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  BETENTIVENESS 

horns,  the  cracking  of  fire  and  cooking  of  food  and  new  sights  at  every  turn  of 
the  approving  eye. 

Score,  50. 

(e)  Poetry. — The  scoring  of  the  poetry  was  practically  identical 
with  the  scoring  of  the  prose.  Nothing,  therefore,  need  be  said  unless 
it  is  that  the  "judges'  mark"  was  more  or  less  influenced  by  the  qual- 
ity of  the  rhythm,  rhyme,  etc.  For  example,  other  things  being  equal, 
a  word  that  rhymed  with  the  appropriate  preceding  word  was  given 
preference  over  one  that  did  not,  even  though  neither  of  the  words  ap- 
peared in  the  original  stanza. 

The  result  of  the  scoring  is  seen  in  the  following  examples : 

Selection  Studied16 

And  gentle  Ellen  welcomed  her 

With  courteous  looks  and  mild: 
Thought  she  ' '  what  if  her  heart  should  melt, 

And  all  be  reconciled!" 

The  day  was  scarcely  like  a  day — 

The  clouds  were  black  outright: 
And  many  a  night,  with  half  a  moon 

I've  seen  the  church  more  light. 

The  wind  was  wild;  against  the  glass 

The  rain  did  beat  and  bicker; 
The  church-tower  swinging  over  head, 

You  scarce  could  hear  the  Vicar! 

And  then  and  there  the  mother  knelt, 

And  audibly  she  cried — 
Oh!  may  a  clinging  curse  consume 

This  woman  by  my  side! 

Eeproduction  by  Subject  A.  F. 

And  gentle  Ellen  welcomed  her, 

With  tender  looks  and  mild. 
Thought  she,  "what  if  her  heart  should  melt 

And  all  be  reconciled. ' ' 

The  day  was  scarcely  like  a  day, 

The  clouds  were  black  outright 
And  many  a  night  with  half  a  moon 

I've  seen  the  church  more  bright. 

16  Other  selections  of  prose  and  poetry,  and  other  lists  of  digits,  words  and 
nonsense  syllables,  used  as  materials  with  some  groups  of  subjects,  are  reproduced 
in  the  Appendix. 


METHODS  EMPLOYED  33 

The , 


Score,  85. 


The  church  tower  swinging  overhead 
You  scarce  could  hear  the  preacher. 

And  then  and  there  the  mother  knelt, 

and  audibly  she  cried, 
1 '  Oh,  may  a  clinging  curse  consume, 

This  woman  by  my  side!  " 

Keproduction  by  Subject  J.  M. 

And  gentle  Ellen  welcomed  her 
With  courteous  looks  and  mild, 

Thot  she,  what  if  her  heart  should  

And  all  be  reconciled. 

The  sky  was  dark,  the  wind  blew  wild, 


We  scarce  could  hear  the  vicar. 
(There   was   something  about  a  mother  praying  that   another  woman   be 


cursed.) 

Score,  39. 


Keproduction  by  Subject  M.  K. 

And  genter  Ellen  welcomed  her, 
With  courteous  looks  and  mild, 
Tho't  she  what  tho  her 


Score,  23. 


The  day  was  

The  clouds 

And  many  a  night  I  seen  more 


Classes  of  Subjects  Tested 

1.  40  grammar-school  students.    Modal  age,  14. 

2.  24  trade-school  students.     Modal  age,  16. 

3.  60  high-school  students.    Modal  age,  17. 

4.  24  state  reformatory  inmates.    Modal  age,  20. 

5.  132  normal-college  students.    Modal  age,  21. 

6.  32  Columbia  College  seniors.    Modal  age,  22. 

7.  14  Barnard  College  seniors.    Modal  age,  22. 

8.  24  asylum  attendants.    Modal  age,  25. 

9.  12  workhouse  inmates.    Modal  age,  30. 

10.  24  clerks  and  business  men.    Modal  age,  30. 

11.  16  graduate  students,  instructors,  and  professors.    Modal  age,  32. 

12.  24  prison  inmates.    Modal  age,  34. 


CHAPTER   III 


RESULTS 


The  Tables. — To  set  forth  in  full  the  individual  records  of  the 
twelve  groups  of  subjects  mentioned  on  page  33  would  require  an 
excessive  amount  of  space,  and  I  have  accordingly  limited  the  de- 
tailed presentation  to  two  groups,  one  of  24  normal-college  seniors, 
and  the  other  of  17  students  in  a  course  in  experimental  psychology 
in  the  normal  college.  These  subjects  are  all  young  women.  Their 
records  are  given  in  Tables  I.-X.,  which  are  self-explanatory,  except 
perhaps  for  the  columns  numbered  5  and  6,  8  and  9,  and  11  and  12. 
These  give  the  average  results  for  the  quarters  and  for  the  halves  of 


Subject 
El.  W. 
Ed.  W. 
H.  B  .. 

F.  Wi.  . 
M.   K. 

G.  L.  .. 
J.  M.  . 
F.  K.  . 
A.  H.  . 
R.  W.  . 
C.  C.  .. 
H.  M.   . 

A.  N.  .. 
M.  T.  . 
F.  Sc.  . 
F.  St.   . 

B.  O.  . 
S.  T.  .. 
A.  T.  . 
E.  S.  .. 
L.  J. 
E.  R.  .. 
E.  T.  .. 
J.  Me.  . 
Aver.  .. 


TABLE    I 

20  Digits.    Normal-College  Seniors.    Girls 


Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

.  2.25 

.   3.00 

.   4.50 

.  4.56 

.   4.66 

, .   5.00 

.   6.00 

.   6.00 

,.   6.16 

..   7.00 

.   8.00 

.   8.25 

, .   8.25 

.   8.25 

.  .    8.33 

. .    8.66 

.12.00 

..13.00 

.15.00 

,.16.80 

..20.16 

.20.16 

..21.50 

,.29.00 

..10.26 


3  4       5 

Method  Three 


Time  After 

One  Week, 

Min. 

.66 
1.16 
1.75 
1.25 

.50 
4.33 
2.33 
3.00 
2.80 
2.50 
2.00 
1.40 
2.33 
1.16 
3.66 
2.50 
2.66 
5.88 
9.80 
3.50 
2.40 
2.00 
5.00 
11.50 
2.76 


01 


63 


Percent,  of  Time 
Saved  or  Amount 
Retained. 

69 

61 

61 

73 

89 

13 

61 

50 

55 

64 

75 

83 

72 

86 

56 

71 

78 

55 

351 

79 


^65  J 


90 
77 
60 
67 


701 


72 


71 


7       8  9 

Method  One 


Score  Per  Cent. 
331 


10      11       12 

Method  Two 


Score  Per  Cent. 
40' 


34 

39 

34 
9 

-28' 

36 
30 

37 

40 

19 

30  ' 

-  27 

27 
34 

27 

32 

24 
26 

-26. 

37 
30 

20 

27 

29 

34 

23  = 

34 

30 

41 

19 
27 

^23" 

31 
34 

23 

43 

18 

- 

9" 

"22 

31 
23 

19 

46 

26 
33 

-20. 

40 

47 

8 

22 

26 

35 

24 

35 

35  1 


^32 


34 


-36 


36 


36 


34 


BESULTS 


35 


the  groups,  when  the  individuals  are  arranged,  as  they  are  in  each 
table,  in  the  order  of  their  quickness  of  learning  the  material.  Thus, 
in  Table  I.,  Column  5  informs  us  that  the  quickest  quarter  of  the 
group  in  learning  20  digits  saved  61  per  cent,  in  relearning,  the 
second  quarter  65  per  cent.,  the  third  quarter  70  per  cent.,  and  the 

TABLE  II 

20  Nonsense  Syllables.    Normal- College  Seniors.    Girls 


Subject 
M.  K.  . 
El.  W.  . 
Ed.  W. 
F.  St.  . 
A.  T.  . 
H.  B.    . 

A.  H.  . 
F.  Wi.  . 
E.  W.   . 

E.  S.    . 

F.  Se.  . 

B.  0.  . 
A.  N.  . 
M.  T... 
H.  M.   . 

F.  K.  . 
J.  M.  . 
L.  J. 

C.  C.  .. 
E.  E.  . 
S.  T.  . . 
J.  Mc. 

G.  L.  ., 
E.  T.  .. 
Aver.   . , 


Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

..12.00 

..13.50 

..14.00 

..24.25 

..25.00 

..26.00 

..26.40 

..28.00 

..28.00 

..29.56 

..31.00 

..31.75 

..32.00 

..33.50 

..34.00 

..34.00 

..35.50 

..36.08 

..37.00 

..40.80 

..42.00 

...42.00 

..44.16 

..45.00 

..31.06 


3  4       5  6 

Method  Three 


7        8  9 

Method  One 


10       11        12 
Method  Two 


Time  After 

One  Week, 

Min. 

4.00 

Perce 

Saved 

R 

67' 

at.  of  Time 
or  Amount 
stained                  Sec 

17  1 

re  Per  Cent.       Scor 
49 

5.25 

61 

22 

51 

7.00 
5.50 

50 
77 

-68  ' 

52 
15 

-26" 

62 
41 

8.00 

68 

11 

31 

4.16 

4.50 

84 
83' 

40 
*71            37; 

50 
-26            49 

2.33 

92 

48 

65 

7.00 
15.00 

75 
49 

-75. 

18 

8 

-25. 

38 
17 

10.25 

67 

20 

43 

5.50 

83 

19 

38 

9.16 

71s 

21* 

15 

13.40 

60 

7 

18 

8.80 
6.40 

74 

81 

»67' 

18 
21 

-19" 

40 
30 

15.66 

56 

17 

15.00 
16.50 

58 
55" 

29 
-68            HT 

29 
*21            36 

15.16 

63 

39 

53 

13.00 
12.66 

69 

70 

*69. 

14 
18 

-23. 

18 
41 

4.50 

90 

46 

52 

15.40 

66 

6 

38 

9.34 

70 ' 

23' 

40 

y  47 


42  J 


44 


26"! 


Mo 


33 


lowest  quarter  72  per  cent. ;  and  Column  6  tells  us  that  the  upper  half 
of  the  group,  in  respect  to  speed  of  learning,  saved  63  per  cent,  in  re- 
learning,  while  the  lower  half  saved  71  per  cent. 

Table  XI.  sums  up  the  results  of  Tables  I.-V.  in  condensed  form, 
and  Table  XII.  does  the  same  for  Tables  VI.-X.  The  column  num- 
bers in  these,  as  also  in  the  following  tables,  correspond  to  those  in 
the  full  Tables  I.-X. 

It  should  be  understood  that  the  "upper  half"  and  the  "lower 
half, ' '  for  each  material,  consist  of  those  individuals  who  fell  into  the 
respective  halves  of  the  group  in  the  particular  material  studied. 


36      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 


The  upper  half  does  not,  therefore,  always  include  exactly  the  same 

individuals;  and  the  average  results,  in  Tables  XI.  and  following, 

are  obtained  by  combining  the  results  of  these  various  halves,  and  not 

by  segregating  the  individuals  who  on  the  average  learned  the  most 

or  the  least  quickly. 

TABLE  III 

20  Words.    Normal-College  Seniors.    Girls 


1 

Subject 

2 

Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

3                  4       5           6                  7        8           9              10       11         12 
Method  Three                            Method  One             Method  Two 

Time  After    Percent,  of  Time 
Ten  Weeks,  S  aved  or  Amount 

Min.               Retained.                  Score  Per  Cent.       Score  Per  Cent 

A.  H.   . 

. .    4.40 

1.00 

77- 

43" 

53  ' 

H.  B.   . 

.  .   5.00 

4.66 

7 

12 

43 

El.  W.  . 
G.  L.  .. 

.  .   7.00 
. .   7.66 

3.88 
4.66 

43 
39 

►  45" 

35 
11 

-26' 

50 
39 

-44- 

Ed.  W. 

. .   9.00 

3.08 

66 

31 

51 

A.  N.   . 
E.  W.  . 

. .  9.50 
..10.25 

6.00 
5.00 

37 
5l" 

22 
-40            20= 

28 
■ 23            52  = 

►  44 

A.  T.    . 

..10.40 

6.75 

35 

14 

41 

M.  T.   . 
E.  S. 

..11.00 
..11.00 

7.50 

8.75 

32 

21 

-35. 

20 
17 

-20. 

40 
39 

►  45. 

B.  0.  .. 

..11.25 

6.75 

40 

27 

49 

J.  M.   . 

..11.50 

8.00 

30 

22 

48 

F.  St.  . 

..11.66 

6.88 

41" 

26 = 

46 = 

S.  T.  .. 

..12.00 

4.40 

63 

3 

21 

F.  Sc  .. 

c.  c.  . 

..12.16 
..13.00 

4.00 
3.75 

67 
71 

-54" 

22 
32 

.22- 

40 
49 

-37" 

M.  K.  . 

..13.25 

3.66 

72 

19 

30 

H.  M.  . 
F.  Wi. 

..13.33 

..13.80 

12.25 
4.16 

8 
70 = 

-61            u< 

■-       fr 

-35 

J.  Me.  . 

..14.00 

7.25 

48 

16 

31 

F.  K.   . 
E.  E.  .. 

.  .  14.33 
..15.00 

4.00 
3.50 

72 

77 

-68. 

16 

40 

.18. 

27 
50 

-33. 

L.   J.    . 

..16.00 

2.08 

87 

7 

38 

E.  T.    . 

..28.50 

13.00 

54  j 

9j 

17 

Aver.  . . 

..11.88 

5.62 

51 

21 

39 

Tables  XIII.  and  XIV.  give  the  condensed  result  for  each  mate- 
rial from  two  other  groups  of  subjects,  whose  records  are  not  pre- 
sented individually ;  while  Tables  XV.  and  XVI.  present  the  results 
from  all  the  groups  in  still  greater  condensation.  The  entries  in 
Tables  XV.  and  XVI.  correspond  to  the  average  results  from  all 
materials  combined,  as  presented  at  the  bottom  of  Tables  XI.-XIV. 

Another  way  of  combining  the  results  from  the  use  of  the  differ- 
ent materials  is  illustrated  in  Table  XVII.,  which  again  is  derived 
from  Tables  I.-V.  The  24  individuals  in  the  group  were  arranged  in 
the  order  of  their  success  in  each  test,  and  were  given  numbers  indi- 


RESULTS 


37 


eating  their  rank  or  position  in  the  group.  The  table  gives  the  rank 
of  each  individual  in  each  performance,  and  his  average  rank  in  speed 
of  learning,  in  retention  as  measured  by  the  saving  method  ("method 
three"),  in  recall  ("method  two"),  and  in  recall  after  partial  re- 
learning  ("method  two").  The  average  deviation  of  rank  of  each 
individual  in  each  of  these  kinds  of  performance  is  also  given. 


Prose. 


Subject 
Ed.  W. 
F.  Sc.  . 
A.  H.   . 

E.  S.    . 
El.  W. 
C.  C.  .. 
R.  W.  . 

F.  Wi. 

F.  K.   . 

G.  L.  . 
H.  B.  . 
J.  M.  . 
F.  St.  . 
H.  M.  . 

A.  N.   . 

B.  O.  . 
A.  T.  . 
M.  K.  . 
S.  T.  .. 
M.  T.  . 
L.  J.  .. 
E.  R.  .. 
J.  Mc.  . 
E.  T.  .. 
Aver    . . 


TABLE    IV 

100  Words  (The  Diamond  Bright  Dawn)  Normal-College  Seniors. 
Gkls 


Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

..10.00 
..10.40 
..13.00 
..13.00 
..13.75 
..14.33 
..15.00 
..15.25 
..16.08 
..17.00 
..17.00 
..17.25 
..18.66 
..19.50 
..22.25 
..23.25 
..24.25 
..25.16 
..26.08 
..28.00 
..29.80 
..31.40 
.34.56 
,.45.16 
..20.84 


3  4       5 

Method  Three 


Time  After 

Ten  Weeks, 

Min. 

1.33 

2.16 

1.00 

4.40 

4.00 

4.25 

4.66 

6.00 

4.50 
11.25 

5.40 

8.50 

6.50 
10.00 

9.00 

9.50 

5.56 

7.40 

4.00 
15.00 
17.00 

6.56 

6.88 
11.75 

6.94 


Percent,  of  Time 

Saved  or  Amount 

Retained. 


79 

92 

66 

71 

70 

691 

61 

72 

34 

68 

51 

651 

49 

60 

59 

78 

71 

85 

46 

43 

79 

80 

74 

67 


78-1 


59  J 


68 


^641 


63 


66 


7       8  9 

Method  One 


Score  Per  Cent. 
27 


10       11        12 

Method  Two 


Score  Per  Cent. 
981 


50 

89 

42 
46 

-66" 

99 

50 

56 

85 

77 
49' 

73 
-59     7g 

14 

68 

97 
44 

-53. 

91 

72 

93 

87 

33 

75 

69" 

64 

62 

52 

52 
45 

76 
"46        80 

39 

37 

45 

84 = 

73 
46     95 

51 

60 

32 
20 

-47 

54 
89 

69 

- 

55 

76 

67 

53 

74 

821 


79  J 


80 


64 


70  J 


67 


Finally,  Table  XVIII.  is  derived  from  the  preceding  table  for  a 
purpose  which  will  be  explained  later. 

Time  of  Initial  Learning. — An  examination  of  any  of  the  tables 
will  reveal  the  fact  that  the  time  of  initial  learning  varies  widely  with 
the  different  subjects,  and  that  these  differences  in  learning  are  more 
marked  than  the  individual  differences  in  relearning.  In  other 
words,  it  may  be  stated  as  a  general  rule  that  with  a  given  number  of 
individuals,  there  will  be  a  greater  difference  in  their  time  of  mem- 
orizing than  in  their  retentive  capacity. 


38      DELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEAFNING  TO  BETENTIVENESS 

Generally  speaking,  with  a  group  of  20  or  30  subjects,  the  time 
taken  by  the  quickest  learner  is  to  the  time  taken  by  the  slowest 
learner  as  1 : 4.  This,  however,  would  seem  to  depend  partly  upon  the 
nature  of  the  material  learned.  Among  the  24  Albany  Normal  Col- 
lege seniors  (Tables  I.  to  V.)  it  will  be  noticed  that  with  digits  the 
time  of  the  quickest  learner  is  to  the  time  of  the  slowest  learner  as 
1 :  13 ;  that  with  nonsense-syllables  the  ratio  is  1 : 4 ;  that  in  the  case  of 
words  the  ratio  is  1:7;  that  for  prose  it  is  1:5;  whereas  for  poetry 


TABLE   V 
Poetry.    100  Words  (Gentle  Ellen)  Normal-College  Seniors.    Girls 


Subject 
El.  W.  . 
H.  B.   . 
Ed.  W. 
R.  W.  . 

E.  S.    . 

A.  H.    . 

B.  O.  . 
G.  L.  .. 
A.  N.   . 

F.  Sc.  . 
H.  M.  . 
F.  Wi. 
S.    T.    . 

E.  R.  . 
M.  T.   . 

F.  K.  . 
M.  K.  . 

E.  T.    . 

C.  C.  .. 
J.  M.  . 
J.  Mc.  . 

F.  St.  . 
A.  T.  . 
L.  J.  .. 
Aver.    . 


Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

.  .    2.08 

.  .   3.00 

. .   3.25 

. .   5.00 

. .   7.00 

. .   7.50 

. .   8.66 

. .   8.80 

. .   9.50 

..10.00 

..10.00 

..10.16 

..10.50 

..10.56 

..10.75 

..12.25 

..13.40 

..13.75 

..14.00 

..15.75 

..17.00 

..17.16 

..19.75 

..20.00 

..10.83 


3  4       5 

Method  Three 


Time  After 

Ten  Weekg, 

Min. 

1.00 

1.75 

.33 

1.40 

4.50 

0.00 

3.88 

6.16 

4.40 

2.16 

5.25 

2.25 

2.00 

3.80 

5.00 

7.16 

5.08 

6.33 

3.08 

6.25 

5.75 

5.08 

5.50 

7.66 

4.00 


65 


Y57J 


1-61 


Percent,  of  Time 

Saved  or  Amount 

Retained. 

52' 

42 

90 

72 

36 

100 

561 

30 

54 

78 

48 

78 

81 

64 

53 

58 

62 

54 

78 

60 

66 

71 

72 

62 

63 


02 


65 


7       8  9 

Method  One 


Score  Per  Cent. 
36' 


10       11       12 
Method  Two 


Score  Per  Cent. 
59 


95 

98 

64 
30 

►56" 

100 
39 

11 

36 

97 
96 = 

►59 

100 
99 

28 

50 

57 
59 

■68- 

55 

87 

77 

82 

60 

71 

10 = 

35 

78 

92 

51 
73 

"i3l 

84 
89 

23 

44 

24  . 
46" 

-40 

48 
67 

36 

47 

39 

-37. 

42 

13 

31 

32 

40 

53. 

68 

50 

65 

h72 


M4 


73 


^651 


-19 


^  57 


it  is  1 :  10.  The  difference  in  these  ratios  is,  of  course,  largely  a  matter 
of  chance.  Take,  for  example,  the  table  for  words:  here  the  slowest 
learner  takes  28  minutes  and  30  seconds,  whereas  the  next  slowest 
learner  takes  only  16  minutes.  It  is  obvious  that  a  much  fairer  form 
of  comparison  is  that  of  comparing  the  average  of  the  first  four  with 
the  average  of  the  last  four.    Doing  this  we  find  that  the  ratios  are  as 


RESULTS 


39 


follows :  for  digits  1:6;  nonsense-syllables  1:3;  words  1:3;  prose 
1:3;  poetry  1 :  5.1 

An  individual  who  is  a  quick  learner  of  one  sort  of  material  tends, 
upon  the  whole,  to  be  a  quick  learner  of  other  sorts  also.  This  is 
seen  most  conveniently  in  the  first  part  of  Table  XVII.,  which 
shows  the  ranks  of  24  individuals  in  quickness  of  learning  five  sorts 


TABLE    VI 
20  Digits.    Class  in  Experimental  Psychology.    Girls 


3  4        5 

Method  Three 


Percent,  of  Time 

Saved  or  Amount 

Retained. 

78 


7       8  9 

Method  Ona 


Score  Per  Cent. 
39 


30 


21 


25 


24  J 


25 


24 


10       11        12 
Method  Two 


Score  Per  Cent. 
39 


33 


27 


341 


30  J 


30 


32 


of  material.  Some  individuals  stand  consistently  high,  and  some  con- 
sistently low.  There  is,  however,  a  good  deal  of  shifting  from  one 
material  to  another,  and  this  shifting  finds  expression  in  the  coeffi- 
cient of  correlation  between  the  ranking  in  two  materials.  As  com- 
puted by  the  rank-difference  method,  the  average  correlation  between 
the  speed  of  learning  any  two  sorts  of  material  is,  for  this  group  of 
subjects,  -4-  .51.  For  the  17  subjects  whose  records  are  given  in 
Tables  VI.-X.,  the  average  correlation  comes  out  a  little  lower, 
-f-  .42.  The  shifting  of  an  individual 's  rank  from  one  material  to 
another  is  partly  due  to  the  accidental  factors  inherent  in  a  single 

1  Even  when  we  thus  obtain  our  ratio  by  comparing  the  average  of  the  first 
four  subjects  with  the  average  of  the  last  four,  the  P.E.  is  very  large.  It  ia  a 
noticeable  fact,  however,  and  one  of  some  interest,  that  with  every  group  of  sub- 
jects the  greatest  difference  (ratio)  occurs  with  the  digits. 


40      EEL  AT  ION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  BETENTIVENESS 

test,  and  partly,  no  doubt,  to  actual  differences  in  the  efficiency  of  the 
individual's  powers  of  memorizing  different  classes  of  material. 

Interval  between  Learning  and  Reproduction. — This  interval 
varied  in  different  experiments,  as  indicated  in  the  several  tables.  In 
the  majority  of  my  experiments  the  interval  that  was  allowed  to 
elapse  for  digits  and  nonsense-syllables  was  either  three  days  or  one 


TABLE    VII 

12  Nonsense  Syllables. 

Class  in  Experimental  Psychology.    Girls 

1                     2 

Time  of 
First 
Learning, 
Subject        Min. 

3              4      5         6 
Method  Three 

Time  After    Percent,  of  Time 

One  Week,    Saved  or  Amount 

Min.               Retained. 

7       8           9              10       11        12 
Method  One                Method  Two 

Score  Per  Cent.          Score  Per  Cent. 

J.   S 6.08 

0.75 

88" 

29] 

63"j 

E.  H.    ...   6.75 

1.33 

80 

►  84" 

16  Ul 

40  L  59, 

B.  B.    ...   7.50 

1.16 

85 

53  | 

72  | 

E.  F.    ...   9.16 

1.66 

82. 

►  79 

49  J 

.37           6°J 
d7           48") 

C{? 

E.   C.    ...10.00 

2.80 

72" 

39" 

■  00 

G.  H.   ...11.00 
El.  F.  ...11.50 

5.56 
1.00 

49 
91 

-74, 

34 
47 

►  37_ 

68      5°J 

B.   C.    ...12.00 

2.16 

82- 

29. 

45  J 

A.  D.   ...13.66 

5.33 

61' 

20" 

31 1 

A.  Q.    ...14.00 

3.08 

78 

-73" 

32 

^28" 

40  \  401 

M.  J.    ...14.25 

5.16 

64 

18 

36 

I.    S.    ...16.00 

1.66 

90  j 

-65 

42  ^ 

54  J 

F.  Wo.   ..17.00 

9.16 

46" 

12" 

•23           19  " 

-  3] 

H.  A.   ...18.50 

4.88 

74 

17 

39 

E.  A.    ...19.33 

5.50 

72 

-41. 

21 

■18. 

19 

•  23. 

E.  B.    ...31.00 

12.08 

61 

24 

22 

M.  N.  ...32.56 

19.25 

40. 

10. 

18. 

Aver 14.72 

4.74 

71 

30 

42 

week,  whereas  for  words,  prose  and  poetry  it  was  much  longer,  being 
from  three  to  ten  weeks.  In  an  investigation  of  this  nature,  where  we 
are  concerned  primarily  with  acquisition  as  related  to  retention,  we 
can  of  course  choose  any  interval  we  wish.  "We  might  wait  six  months 
and  still  find  a  relation  between  learning  and  retention.  That  this 
relation  would  differ  with  the  interval,  however,  appears  probable 
from  certain  tests  I  have  made  where  the  longer  interval  gave  a  nega- 
tive correlation.  I  have  not  studied  the  matter  systematically,  and. 
the  data  presented  in  this  paper  do  not  show  any  clear  difference  ac- 
cording to  the  interval  employed.  In  general,  we  may  suppose,  the 
difference  in  amount  reproduced  by  quick  and  slow  learners  tends  to 
become  less,  since  the  amounts  retained  by  all  approach  zero  with  time. 


BESULTS 


41 


Amount  Retained 

Method  1. — Method  1  has  already  been  described  in  Section  2  of 
the  preceding  chapter.  It  shows  the  amount  that  can  be  reproduced, 
after  the  lapse  of  a  certain  time  interval,  of  the  material  originally 
memorized, — this  reproduction  being  without  a  fresh  presentation. 
By  consulting  columns  7,  8,  and  9  of  any  table,  it  will  be  noticed  that 

TABLE  VIII 


20  Woeds.    Class  in  Experimental  Psychology.    Giels 


Subject 
B.  B. 
E.  P. 

E.  A. 

F.  W. 
E.  C. 
B.  C. 
A.  D. 
A.  Q. 
J.  S. 
I.  S, 
M.  J. 
H.  A. 

G.  H. 
El.  F. 
E.  H. 
M.  N. 
R.  B. 
Aver. 


2 

Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

..   5.80 

..   7.33 

..   7.40 

..   8.00 

..    8.56 

..   9.16 

..   9.16 

..10.08 

..10.08 

..12.00 

..13.16 

..13.50 

..14.50 

..15.08 

..15.33 

..17.00 

..19.00 

..11.48 


3  4        5 

Method  Three 


Time  After 

Ten  Weeks, 

Min. 

2.08 

2.66 

2.25 

6.00 

4.50 

4.66 

6.40 

4.80 

1.88 

6.00 

6.33 

7.33 

7.75 

6.40 

4.24 

5.00 

6.08 

4.96 


Percent,  of  Time 

Saved  or  Amount 

Retained. 

64  ^ 


7        8  9 

Method  One 


10       11        12 

Method  Two 


Score  Per  Cent. 
53 


in  the  case  of  all  materials,  both  meaningless  and  logical,  there  ap- 
pears to  be  a  positive  correlation  between  quickness  of  learning  and 
the  amount  retained.  The  score  obtained  by  the  first  half2  is  in  gen- 
eral better  than  that  obtained  by  the  last  half.  This  is  most  marked 
in  the  case  of  prose  and  least  marked  with  digits.  In  fact  with  digits, 
the  score  obtained  by  the  last  half  is,  in  several  cases,  very  nearly  as 
high  as  the  first  half,  and  in  the  case  of  the  high-school  students 
(Table  XIV.),  the  score  of  the  last  half  is  even  better.  In  any  case, 
however,  the  difference  is  small.  With  nonsense-syllables,  words,  and 
poetry  the  difference  is  slightly  in  favor  of  the  quick  learners,  al- 
though on  the  whole  the  difference  is  but  slight.    The  probable  error, 

2  In  the  following  pages  we  shall  by  "First  half"  or  "Upper  half"  here- 
after understand  the  quickest  learners,  and  by  ' '  Last  half  "  or  "  Lower  half ' ' 
the  slowest  or  poorest  learners. 


42      DELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

however,  is  in  most  cases  so  high  that  the  value  of  index  of  correlation 
is  considerably  lowered.  "Were  it  not  that  what  correlation  we  do 
obtain  is  positive  for  every  table  the  figures  would  have  much  less 
value.  In  the  case  of  prose  and  poetry,  a  positive  correlation  is  un- 
questionable. With  prose  for  example,  the  average  score  for  the 
quickest  learners  is,  as  a  rule,  nearly  double  the  score  for  the  slow 
learners.  The  use  of  the  Pearson  method  gives  so  high  an  index  that 
the  evidence  is  conclusive. 

Method  2. — Concerning  Method  2,  little  need  be  said, — the  indi- 


Prose. 


Subject 
B.  B,  . 
E.  C.  .. 
B.  C.  .. 

F.    . 

Q.  . 


TABLE    IX 

100  "Words  ("The  Present  Study")  Class  in  Experimental  Psy- 
chology.   Girls 


E. 
A. 
I.  S.  . 
H.  A. 
G.  H.  . 
M.  J. 
E.  H. 
El.  P. 
M.  N. 
R.  B.  . 

E.  A.  . 
J.  S,  . 

F.  Wo. 
A.  D. 
Aver.   . 


Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

.  .    7.00 

..11.16 

..12.25 

..14.33 

..16.08 

..17.50 

..19.00 

..19.33 

..20.00 

. .  20.40 

..21.56 

..25.25 

..28.16 

..28.40 

..30.00 

..32.66 

..39.50 

..21.33 


3  4        5 

Method  Three 


Time  After 

Ten  Weeks, 

Min. 

2.88 

4.25 

4.88 

4.80 

7.00 

4.33 

3.80 
11.56 

5.88 
10.33 

9.00 
10.56 

8.08 
10.25 
15.00 
10.75 
10.66 

7.88 


Percent,  of  Time 

Saved  or  Amount 

Retained. 

59" 


621 


^62 


63 


59 


f  66J 


63 


7       8  9 

Method  One 


Score  Per  Cent. 
57 


50 


53 


21 


21 


51 


21 


10        11         12 
Method  Two 


Score  Per  Ceat. 
81 


vidual  differences  being  much  the  same  as  those  observed  by  Method 
1.  With  the  exception  of  digits,  the  quick  learners  get  the  higher 
scores.  Here  again  the  greatest  difference  is  with  the  prose  and  the 
least  with  the  digits.  The  most  noticeable  fact  with  this  method  is 
that  it  gives  the  highest  correlation  of  all,  and  that  the  correlation  is 
high  throughout,  i.  e.,  for  all  materials.  The  explanation  of  this  is 
not  hard  to  find.  It  lies  in  the  fact  that  with  Method  2,  after  the 
lapse  of  a  certain  number  of  days,  the  material  is  read  once,  and  only 
once,  to  the  subject,  after  which  reading  he  is  asked  to  write  down  as 
much  as  possible.     Obviously,  the  quick  learner  will  get  more  from 


RESULTS 


43 


this  one  reading  than  the  slow  learner  and  thus  the  index  is  made 
higher. 

Method  3. — So  many  factors  are  involved  in  this  method  that  it 
calls  for  a  more  lengthy  discussion  than  either  of  the  two  preceding 
methods.  With  this  method  the  correlation  is  as  a  rule  negative,  both 
by   the   Pearson   method    and   by   the   rather   crude    ''percentage 

TABLE   X 

Poetry.    100  Words  ("To  See  a  Man").    Class  in  Experimental  Psychol- 
ogy.   Girls 


Subject 
B.  B.  .. 

F.  W.  . 
M.  J.  . 
E.  F.  . 
E.  C.  .. 

G.  H.  . 
E.  H.  .. 
E.  A.  . 
A.  Q.  . 
R.  B.  .. 

A.  D.  .. 
El.  F.  . 

B.  C.  .. 
J.  S. 

I.  S.  .. 
M.  N,  . 
H.  A.  . 
Aver.   . . 


Time  of 

First 

Learning, 

Min. 

.  .   5.16 

. .    7.00 

.  .   7.33 

. .   8.50 

..   9.56 

..11.25 

..11.50 

..11.80 

..12.00 

..12.16 

..12.16 

..12.75 

..13.00 

..14.00 

..14.00 

..14.56 

..14.75 

..11.26 


3  4      5 

Method  Three 


7       8  9 

Method  One 


Time  After 

Ten  Weeks, 

Min. 

3.56 

2.50 

2.40 

3.50 

4.33 

8.08 

2.66 

5.08 

2.50 

0.00 

6.56 

6.00 

3.50 

0.33 

4.25 

5.25 

5.50 

3.88 


55 


Percent,  of  Time 

Saved  or  Amount 

Retained. 

31 

64 

67 

59 

551 

28 

77 

57J 

79i 

100 

46 

53 

73 

98 

70 

64 

63 

64 


-  55 


54 


U  70 


74 


>-72 


9 
45 
55 
76 
85 

5 
91 
69  i 
98 
37 
49 
95 
60 


79 


^64 


70. 


50 


10       11        12 
Method  Two 


Score  Per  Cent. 

94 

87 

84 

68 

93 

38 

95 

72 

98  1 
100 

42 

93 

90 
100 

46 

68 

45  J 

74 


75 


»83-| 


70  J 


K6 


method."3  With  the  percentage  method  we  find  that  the  quickest 
learners  retain  less  than  the  slower  learners  for  digits,  words  and, 
occasionally  poetry.  For  prose,  on  the  other  hand,  the  quick  learners 
retain  more,  while  for  nonsense-syllables  they  stand  about  even. 
To  repeat:  Method  3  gives  results  that  by  no  means  invariably 
agree  with  those  obtained  by  the  two  preceding  methods.  This  is  due 
to  the  nature  of  the  method,  t.  e.,  to  the  manner  of  computing  the 
"percentage  of  time  saved"  and  treating  this  as  a  measure  of  the 
amount  retained.  Whether  this  is  fair  to  the  quick  learner  is  ques- 
tionable. According  to  Method  3,  those  who  memorize  prose  most 
quickly  retain  it  better  than  those  who  memorize  it  more  slowly; 

3  By  this  we  mean  the  methods  shown  in  columns  4,  5  and  6,  where  the  per- 
centage of  the  first  half  of  the  class  (comprising  the  quickest  learners)  is  com- 
pared with  the  half  of  the  class  comprising  the  slowest  learners. 


44      DELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  BETENTIVENESS 

this,  indeed,  agrees  with  the  result  by  the  other  methods.  With 
poetry  the  same  relation  often  holds  good,  but  the  results  are  not 
uniform,  and,  as  may  be  seen  from  Tables  XI.  and  XII.,  the  quick 
learners  may,  by  this  computation,  forget  even  more,  but  in  any  case 
the  difference  is  not  marked.  Taking  prose  and  poetry  together,  how- 
ever, and  assuming  that  they  are  illustrative  of  "logical"  or  "mean- 
ingful" material,  we  may  say  that  the  results  obtained  agree  with 

TABLE  XI 

24  Normal  College  Seniors 

i  2  s  6  9  12 

Digits : 

Upper  half    5.5  2.0  63  27  34 

Lower  half    15.0  4.0  71  22  36 

Nonsense -syllables : 

Upper  half    24.1  6.5  71  26  44 

Lower  half    38.0  12.1  68  21  36 

Words : 

Upper  half   10.0  5.5  40  23  44 

Lower  half   14.8  5.7  61  20  35 

Prose: 

Upper  half   14.3  4.8  68  59  80 

Lower  half   27.3  9.1  66  46  67 

Poetry : 

Upper  half    7.0  2.8  61  59  73 

Lower  half   14.5  5.2  65  40  57 

Average : 

Upper  half   12.2  4.3  61  39  55 

Lower  half   21.9  7.2  66  30  46 

The  "time  interval"  here,  as  in  Tables  XII.  and  XIV.,  is  1  week  for  the 
digits  and  nonsense-syllables  and  10  weeks  for  the  prose  and  poetry.  In  Table 
XIII.  the  ' '  time  interval ' '  is  3  weeks  for  all  materials. 

those  obtained  by  Methods  1  and  2.  Taking  all  three  methods  into 
consideration,  we  are  entitled  to  say  that  with  material  that  is  logical 
in  character,  those  who  learn  quickly  remember  the  longest. 

With  digits,  however,  a  material  the  memorizing  of  which  is  so- 
called  "rote"  memory,  we  find  that  the  conditions  are,  so  far  as 
Method  3  is  concerned,  reversed,  for  here  it  is  the  quick  learners  who 
seem  to  forget  the  most.  With  digits  the  amount  forgotten,  as  ascer- 
tained by  Method  3,  is  always  greater  for  the  upper  half  of  the  class, 
and  not  only  is  this  always  so,  but  the  difference  between  the  two 
halves  of  the  class  is  generally  marked.  This  result  is  not  strongly 
contradicted  by  Methods  1  and  2,  according  to  which  the  difference 
is  slight.  At  any  rate  we  may  say  with  some  degree  of  certainty  that, 
in  the  main,  those  who  memorize  digits  slowly  are  more  apt  to  retain 


RESULTS  45 

them  than  those  who  memorize  them  quickly.  This  is  just  the  oppo- 
site of  the  statement  made  for  prose  and  poetry,  and  digits  being  an 
"opposite"  form  of  material,  so  to  speak,  one  might  make  the  infer- 
ence that  those  who  learn  slowly  remember  long,  if  the  material  used 
is  such  as  involves  motor  associations,  but  that  they  forget  quickly  if 

TABLE   XII 
17  Normal  College  Seniors 

1                                2  3  6  9  12 

Digits  : 

Upper  half  6.5  2.8  58  25  30 

Lower  half  13.5  2.5  81  24  32 

Nonsense-syllables : 

Upper  half  9.2  2.0  79  37  55 

Lower  half  19.5  7.3  65  23  31 

Words : 

Upper  half  8.2  4.2  50  21  42 

Lower  half  14.4  5.7  61  21  35 

Prose: 

Upper  half  14.6  5.4  62  51  79 

Lower  half  27.3  10.0  63  21  49 

Poetry : 

Upper  half  9.0  4.0  55  53  79 

Lower  half  13.2  3.7  72  50  76 

A  verage : 

Upper  half  9.5  3.7  61  37  57 

Lower  half  17.6  5.8  68  28  45 

The  difference  between  Tables  XI.  and  XII.  is  probably  due  largely  to  the 
fact  that  the  ' '  materials ' '  used  are  not  identical. 

In  this  group  of  subjects  only  12  nonsense-syllables  were  used. 

the  material  is  logical  in  character,  e.  g.,  prose,  and  to  a  somewhat 
less  extent,  poetry. 

Such  a  statement,  however,  is  true  only  in  a  very  rough  way.  In 
the  first  place,  nonsense-syllables,  a  material  that  is  not  only  "un- 
meaningful"  in  character,  but  that  involves  the  "memorizing,"  so  to 
speak,  of  motor  associations,  seems — so  far  as  Method  3  is  concerned — 
to  side  more  with  the  prose  than  with  digits.  On  the  other  hand, 
ivords,  a  material  that,  one  would  think  necessitated  the  formation  of 
logical  associations,  partakes  (so  far  as  Method  3  is  concerned)  of  the 
nature  of  digits,  for  the  "upper  half"  always  retains  less  than  the 
"lower  half."  Just  why  this  should  be  is  difficult  to  say,  and  I  have 
no  satisfactory  explanation  to  offer. 

With  prose  and  poetry  our  results  by  all  these'  methods  are  quite 
uniform.    As  this  material  is  essentially  "logical"  in  character  our 


46      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 

results  do  not  disagree  with  those  obtained  by  Henderson,4  Thorn- 
dike,5  and  Pyle,6  each  of  whom  found  that  those  who  learn  quickly 
retain  more  than  those  who  learn  slowly,  for  the  material  they  used 
was  not  such  as  involved  the  learning  of  motor  associations,  as  is 
largely  the  case  with  digits  and,  with  many  individuals,  even  with 
words. 

Taking  all  three  methods  into  consideration,  however,  and  aver- 

TABLE    XIII 
20  Columbia  College  Men  Students 

1  2  3  6  9 

Digits: 

Upper  half  3.5  1.6  49  18 

Lower  half  7.4  2.6  .      62  18 

Nonsense-syllables : 

Upper  half  8.0  3.7  52  22 

Lower  half  16.0  7.2  51  20 

Words : 

Upper  half  6.9  2.3  66  38 

Lower  half  14.5  3.0  79  35 

Prose : 

Upper  half  8.5  1.6  80  65 

Lower  half  13.8  4.0  72  51 

Poetry: 

Upper  half  7.9  1.6  81  73 

Lower  half  11.8  3.3  73  63 

Average: 

Upper  half  7.0  2.2  66  43 

Lower  half  12.7  4.0  67  37 

"Method  2"  was  not  tried  with  these  subjects. 
In  this  group  of  subjects  only  12  nonsense-syllables  were  used. 
The  passage  of  prose  was  relatively  easier  than  that  used  in  Tables  XI. 
and  XII.  hence  the  shorter  time. 

aging  the  results  we  find  that,  with  all  materials,  excepting  digits, 
those  who  learn  quickest  forget  the  least.  The  contrary  result  ob- 
tained with  digits  should  not  be  considered  in  any  way  remarkable  or 
contradictory, — the  associations  formed  in  memorizing  digits  being 
quite  different  from  those  formed  in  the  momorizing  of  words  and 
nonsense-syllables.  Not  that  logical  associations  are  invariably  formed 
in  the  memorizing  of  nonsense-syllables,  but  when  associations  are 
formed  they  are  of  the  same  type  as  those  formed  in  the  memorizing 
of  words.  In  short,  the  nonsense-syllable  is  first  converted  into  a 
word,  and  the  word  is  then  "memorized." 

*  "  A  Study  of  Memory, ' '  Psy.  Rev.  Monog.  Supp.,  No.  23,  1903. 

s  "Memory  for  Paired  Associates,"  Psy.  Rev.,  1908,  15,  122. 

«  "Retention  as  Related  to  Repetition,"  Jour,  of  Ed.  Psy.,  1911,  2,  311. 


BESULTS  47 

We  have  already  considered  the  question  concerning  the  degree 
to  which  the  extremes  at  each  end  of  a  series  should  be  considered,  and, 
whether  or  not  they  should  be  taken  at  their  face  value.  The  method 
of  averaging  the  two  halves  of  each  group,  so  that  the  average  of  the 
first  half  may  be  compared  with  the  last  half,  tends,  as  we  have 
already  said,  to  "tone  down"  or  lower  the  significance  of  these  ex- 
tremes by  immersing  them  with  the  remainder  of  the  "half-class"  to 

TABLE  XIV 
60  High  School  Boys  and  Girls 

i                              2  3  6                      9                     12 
Digits: 

Upper  half  6.0  2.6  62 

Lower  half  14.1  3.1  74 

Nonsense-syllables : 

Upper  half  25.3  8.0  68 

Lower  half  38.7  10.9  68 

Words: 

Upper  half  9.5  4.8  48 

Lower  half  15.0  6.0  60 

Prose: 

Upper  half  15.4  5.2  68 

Lower  half  26.1  10.1  61 

Poetry: 

Upper  half  6.0  3.3  65 

Lower  half  13.6  3.7  61 

Arerage : 

Upper  half  12.4  4.8  62 

Lower  half  21.5  7.0  65 

which  they  belong.  Arguments  may  be  made  both  for  and  against 
this  procedure.  In  the  first  place  it  may  justly  be  contended  that  it 
is  these  very  extremes  that  are  most  valuable — and  that  the  compari- 
son of  most  worth  would  be  that  in  which  the  first  two  or  three  indi- 
viduals were  compared  with  the  last  two  or  three.  On  the  other  hand 
it  is  possible  that  it  is  precisely  these  extremes  that  are  most  to  be 
suspected  of  error,  and  that  the  chance  of  error  is  lessened  by  tak'ing 
the  average  or  the  median  of  each  half  of  the  class. 

Roughly  speaking,  the  Pearson  method  may  be  said  to  do  away 
with  both  of  these  objections,  for,  while  it  takes  into  consideration  the 
actual  amounts  themselves,  it  tends  to  lower  the  significance  of  the 
extremes  more  than  does  the  method  of  comparing  the  average  of  one 
half  of  the  class  with  the  other. 

The  Pearson  method  was  used  with  every  group  of  subjects  for 
determining  certain  of  the  correlations  considered  below.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  data  given  in  the  tables  supply  material  for  the  work- 


21 

28 

22 

31 

30 

48 

23 

35 

25 

44 

23 

36 

57 

74 

38 

60 

61 

84 

51 

80 

39 

55 

31 

48 

48      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

ing  out  of  several  correlations.  Of  these  the  four  most  important  are : 
(1)  Column  2  with  3;  (2)  Column  2  with  '4;  (3)  Column  2  with  7; 
and  (4)  Column  2  with  10. 

These  four  correlations  have  been  worked  out  for  every  group  of 
subjects. 

Of  the  four  correlations  mentioned,  the  first,   Column   2  with 

TABLE  XV 

Several  Groups 
40  Grammar  School  Girls.    Modal  Age,  14 

1                                   2  3  6  9  12 

Method  Three  Method  One  Method  Two 

Time  of  First  Per  Cent. 

Learning,  Time  of  Re-  of  Time  Score  Per  Score  Per 

Min.  learning  Saved  Cent.  Cent. 

Av.  upper  half 13.2  5.0  60  37  55 

Av.  lower  half 20.1  6.9  64  28  54 

24  Trade  School  Boys.    Modal  Age,  16 

Av.  upper  half 11.4  4.2  59  35  52    . 

Av.  lower  half 19.2  7.3  60  26  41 

60  High  School  Students.    Both  Sexes.    Modal  Age,  17 

Av.  upper  half 12.4  4.8  62  39  55 

Av.  lower  half 21.5  7.0  65  31  48 

132  Normal  College  Women  Students.    Modal  Age,  21 

Av.  upper  half 11.2  4.0  61  39  56 

Av.  lower  half  17.8  6.4  65  31  47 

24  Asylum  Attendants.    Both  Sexes.    Modal  Age,  25 

Av.  upper  half 14.1  5.2  58  35  52 

Av.  lower  half 18.3  7.2  62  28  41 

12  Clerics  and  Business  Men.    Modal  Age,  30 

Av.  upper  half 12.2  4.4  61  37  49 

Av.  lower  half 20.0  7.1  67  30  39 

16  Graduate  Students  and  Professors.     Men.     Modal  Age,  32 

Av.  upper  half 11.1  3.8  61  41 

Av.  loweT  half  16.9  6.1  63  33 

The  interval  between  first  learning  and  relearning  was,  in  the  groups  included 
in  this  table,  one  week  for  digits  and  nonsense-syllables,  and  ten  weeks  for  words, 
prose  and  poetry. 

Column  3,  is,  with  a  few  exceptions,  positive.  The  exceptions  are  not 
confined  to  any  one  material  though  they  occur  mostly  with  the  digit 
tables.    The  correlation  is  fairly  high,  averaging  between  .5  and  .6. 

The  second  correlation — Column  2  with  Column  4 — belongs  to 
Method  3.  Here,  of  course,  the  correlations  tend  to  correspond  to  the 
relation  shown  by  the  two  figures  of  Column  6  but  this  is  not  inva- 


RESULTS  49 

riable.  For  example,  with  Tables  I.  to  V.  the  correlations  are  all 
negative  with  the  exception  of  prose — and  here  the  correlation  is  so 
low  and  the  P.E.  so  large  that  the  index  obtained  is  practically  of  no 
value.  In  fact  nearly  all  of  these  "Method  3"  correlations  are  ex- 
tremely low  and  their  only  value  is  to  show  that,  so  far  as  Method  3  is 
concerned,  there  is  practically  no  correlation  between  the  rapid  learn- 
ing and  retention. 

The  third  correlation — Column  2  with   Column  7 — belongs  to 

TABLE  XVI 

Several  Groups 

24  State  Reformatory  Inmates.    Males.    Modal  Age,  20 

1                             2                    3                    6  9  12 

Time  of  First  Time  of  Re-  Per  Cent. 

Learning,  learniDg,  of  Time  Score  Per  Score  Per 

Min.                Min.  Saved  Cent.  Cent. 

Av.  upper  half 6.2                 2.1                 68  50  71 

Av.  upper  half 12.2                 3.9  70                43                 62 

32  Columbia  College  Seniors.    Men.    Modal  Age,  22 

Av.  upper  half 9.1                 2.7  68                42 

Av.  lower  half 12.9                5.0  70                35 

lJf  Barnard  College  Seniors.  Women.    Modal  Age,  22 

Av.  upper  half 7.0                 2.2  66                40 

Av.  lower  half 11.8                4.5  69                 33 

12  Workhouse  Inmates.  Men.    Modal  Age,  26 

Av.  upper  half 10.3                4.5  68                 40                66 

Av.  lower  half 16.0                5.4  69                 32                54 

24  Prison  Inmates.    Men.    Modal  Age,  8^ 

Av.  upper  half 9.9                 4.1  70                39 

Av.  lower  half 14.3                 5.0  72                 37 

The  interval  between  the  first  learning  and  the  relearning  was,  for  the  groups 
included  in  this  table,  three  weeks  for  all  materials. 

Method  1.  The  correlation  is,  with  the  exception  of  digits,  always 
positive,  i.  e.,  such  as  to  show  a  correspondence  between  quickness  of 
learning  and  retention,  when  the  latter  is  measured  by  the  amount  re- 
called after  the  interval.  It  is  not,  however,  a  very  high  correlation, 
seldom  going  above  .4  and  averaging  only  .25. 

The  fourth  correlation — Column  2  with  Column  10 — belongs  to 
Method  2.  Generally  speaking  the  index  obtained  agrees  fairly  closely 
with  that  of  Method  1.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  material  is  read 
once  to  the  subject  Method  2  allows  a  certain  amount  of  relearning 
and  thus  approaches  Method  3.  This  is  seen  in  several  of  the  corre- 
lations obtained. 

Even  though,  as  just  stated,  the  general  statistical  relation  between 
speed  of  learning  and  retentiveness  is  very  loose,  it  might  still  be  true 
that  there  was  a  class  of  quick  learners  who  were  poor  in  retention, 


50      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  BETENTIVENESS 

i-H  rH  rH    rH     iH     «H    rl  iHtHrHr-l  l-H    rH     rH    rH     rH  rH    rH     rH 

H  M    ri     H    «    H             i— l             i-l    CO             i-l             CO    i— I    CO             i— I             i-(t-( 

V 

5  IDIOM   MMriWifSCilSM^OOOaoOHlOHOMIMtOWffiTll 

S  "F-^flU           ,_,             ,_,                             i— 1    04    i— 1    ^H                     n    O)             i-l    (M    GO    f-i    i-l             i-i    CO 

w         ■•1<WI^S  CdOBMISOOIOHO^tDhNMOlfflOlSN^HWH"* 

a>      »ia*sao^j       i-i        co        i-ii-i        oo  «— i  »— t  i — i         i— i  i— i        cococo        i— i  i— i 

o 

S  •JlSia  «»ai5iio<MaooHOwisis^MWffli>T|iNHrt'ji 

02  i-l  COr-ICOr-ICOr-li-lr-lr-li-l  CO  i-i  i-iCO 

•sou  ffiinriMoowoB^ini-eiooorHa^TfwoHCos 

"    *<*  CO  i-l    i-l     i-l  i-l  i-l    I-i     CO     r-t  CO    i-i  i-ICO  CO     l-H 

93V19A.Y  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>^lf»G<!eO-=f,,^,~i>,i®i 


93«J3Ay 


(N*^««<f«l'*«'*(Dq»«NN*»'#»<JiO»(»iflOO 

ri»o66Neis««io»«wrtd»6«H'M«**NNW 

lH  ©I  iH     iH     iH     iH     iH  rHiHiHlH  Ct    H    O    H    H  rH     C*    l-H 


S  ^HaO<I  t-OrtMlOWOOOO!OOn!ONlOOMSHTti(Mrt^'*0 

5  Od    i — I    i— I    r- 1  i-l  i-ICO  r-l  i-ICOCOi-lr-l  i-ICO 

o 

■O  BpjOAi  OHHOM^NlOSHOOOOOfflt-Ol^iiMnlMOON 

O  r-l  iH  r-l    i-l    i-l    CO    CO    i-H  i-H    i-H    CO    i-H    CO  i-ICO 

w        arniMnnir  Hri(OlMOOawMOM'*S»T)iaNH©OMt»IOIO'* 
JS         *SU*»UUN  ,_,  ^  i-l    r-|  r-l  t— t     i — I     t— 1  r-ICOr-ICOCO  I-ICO 

g  t-l    r-l    CO  r-l    i— I    CO  r-l  r-l  rHr-ICO  CO  rl  r-ICO 

at 

r— •       2  •BOJJ  HH(MO<OOOOIOO<OK;HHMt»IONMI»'*ffl*M'* 

t— I        ^  i— I  CO  r-l    r-l     l— I     r-l  r-l    CO    CO  CO     r-l     rl     i— I  I— I    CO 

>    5 

i-l     -<^  o(S4N(Be)ooe)e)oooaoon«aoooa«O0in«ieN 

n     -^  h       ••■>•*▼  doidco^HHNMVinnHiri^ciwaoAVNNHejetA 

ci     Wo 

5  AJ}90<J  NinHWOOttOOiilOTilMijIolH^IOSIMntSWHOOl 

j5  '  COr-l  COCOCOi-l  COr-lr-l  r-l  r-li-lr-lr-lr-l 

s 

SpiOM.  OOffl«ejM<l>M(OT|iS'*Hloei5IK©ffiWOOHMWH 
COr-l  r-l  i-ICOCOi-ICOi-li-li-i  i-ICO  r-l    rl 

*S         ••IQ'II^S  M»*^»IM0tlH!0NC0Hb»aOI0MT|IC10lOr.riO 
■JJ        9iaaSUOX  COr-l  COi— ICO  CO  l-H  i-ii-ii-ii— iCOr-lr-lr-l 

*»  „,,.._  mOOt^fOO^OCO-^Ot-COkOr-lCDCOCOr^TtlCOi-IOOOO 

C  s»r»I(I  r-ICOi-l  i—l  I— I     r-l     CO     CO     r-l     r-l     r-l  I— I  CO  CO  r-l 

s 

fl  8SO.LT  N'*ril.'3    0(MtQr.a'*'*OIOHI»fflb«r'MIMW!OiaoO 

.JJ  r— I     t— I     i— I    i— i     I— I  CO     r-l     CO    rH     CO     i-l     rl  r-l  COCO 

U0U»!A8(I  OtoteSl«0«0?«;9J"*HOO;93<SO'>j«CiQqi<5J«.«^950qei 

aSsasA  v  »«i^c^j^^->>^^^u5^<^^<^ii^<^cotoCN©i^©i»-i>^9rj 

a        83BI9AV  •<»«»,*«*WO«»e»^«»*»o**q'J!»»(0 
■a  N6ioaJ«*N6^6^riMHi-is*ri^<*H'6«eiie?* 

g  iH  iH  r-lrHr-l  tHtH  HHHHHHOe,M«r1 

d 

O  ij}30(J  MOBIOHa^.lNtO»IMONHffll>COr-COIOi*HIKI 

i—l  i—l  i— I    i — I  CO    CO     i— l  COi— lr-(i— iCOi— iCOrH 

B 

£  BpiOj^  lOlOHOOKOt-OHTllNKIWOOtOHOONllllSWINOTtl 

"  r-l  r-l  l-l  r-ICO  l-lr-ir-l  rH  r-l     r-l  COCOCOCO 

S  aarlaarlni^  Mi-Ht-OCOCsOOOOfC^t^^lOCCCOmi-lr-iTjIOOOCOTH 

9  9«n»BU0>l  ,_,  ,_,  ,_,  rl     M  i-H  I— I     r—     I— I  COl-lr-lCOCOCO 

S}t3l<7  COUiOJOr-ir-lO^OOOfOl>.«OCOOOt-C»WQO-*r-lCOTt<eo 
r-l  CO  r-ll-l  1— I     r— I     I — I     r— I     ■ — I  l-li-lCOCOCOCO 

aiojtj  H(McijTiiiaot.ooo)OHNMT(no(oscoaoH«»i(i 

i — I    i — I    i — l     i — I     r— t    t — ii— l     r-i     i— li— ICOCOCOCOCO 

: :     •   <v 

H  Pm*  <  '4  3  a  Ph  fr  Ph  6  W  r-i  &  M  «j  pq  <  §  02  §  4  w  ^  w  <j  <j 


RESULTS  51 

and  a  class  of  slow  learners  who  were  good  in  retention.  Such  is  the 
common  belief,  no  doubt,  and  such  a  view  is  sometimes  expressed  in 
psychological  literature.  In  attempting  to  judge  of  the  correctness 
of  this  view,  we  must  not  be  misled  by  chance  coincidences.  In  a 
series  of  single  tests,  it  is  almost  certain  to  happen  that  an  individual 
who  learns  a  certain  selection  quickly  shall  be  found  to  retain  it 
poorly,  or  that  one  who  learns  it  slowly  shall  be  found  to  retain  it 
well.  In  the  absence  of  a  general  statistical  confirmation  of  this  rela- 
tion, a  few  such  isolated  cases  have  little  significance.  But  if  it  is 
found,  by  repeated  tests  of  the  same  individual,  that  he  regularly 
learns  quickly  and  regularly  forgets  quickly,  then  his  case  is  signif- 
icant as  showing  that  individuals  do  exist  who  are  distinctively  quick 
learners  and  poor  retainers.  My  tests  afford  some  opportunity  for 
examining  this  question,  since  each  individual  was  tested  with  five 
different  materials.    Table  XVII.,  giving  the  ranks  of  24  individuals 

TABLE  XVIII 
Average  Banks  and  Variabilities  of  the  Most  Consistent  Individuals 

Recall  Relearning 

Learning  (Method  1)                           (Method  3) 

Individual    A  v.  Rank  A.D.  of  Rank  Av.  Rank  A.D.                     Av.  Rank  A.D. 

Ed.  W 2.8               1.0  3.2               2.2  10.0               5.2 

A.   H 5.2               2.6  4.8               4.1  5.4               5.4 

E.  W 7.4               1.7  12.8               2.1  11.0               2.4 

A.   N 11.2               3.0  10.2               1.9  14.8               3.4 

S.    T 17.0               2.8  21.4               2.0  9.8               7.2 

E.  E 20.0               2.4  4.0               1.6                 7.6               5.1 

J.   Mc 22.4               1.3  14.6               1.5  11.5               3.3 

E.   T 22.6               1.8  22.8               1.4  12.4               4.0 

General   Av...l2.5               3.2  12.5               3.5  12.5               5.0 

in  learning  each  material,  and  in  recalling  and  relearning  it  after  an 
interval,  affords  an  opportunity  for  looking  for  individuals  who  are 
consistently  quick  or  slow  learners  and  for  finding  how  well  they  do 
in  retention.  Table  XVIII.  extracts  from  Table  XVII.  the  records  of 
the  most  consistent  individuals. 

Regarding  these  individuals,  it  may  be  noted  that : 
Ed.  W.,  while  consistently  high  in  learning  and  recall,  occupies  a 
medium  and  rather  variable  position  in  relearning. 

A.  H.  stand  high  on  the  average  throughout,  but  is  rather  variable 
in  recall  and  relearning. 

E.  W.  and  A.  N.  are  consistently  medium  throughout. 
S.  T.  is  consistently  low  in  learning  and  recall,  but  variable  in 
relearning. 

E.  B.,  the  most  interesting  case,  is  consistently  low  in  learning, 
consistently  high  in  recall,  and  high,  though  only  moderately  con- 
sistent, in  relearning. 


52      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  EETENTIVENESS 

J.  Me.  is  consistently  low  in  learning,  and  consistently  medium 
in  recall  and  relearning. 

E.  T.  is  consistently  low  in  learning  and  in  recall,  and  consistently 
medium  in  relearning. 

There  is  no  one,  then,  who  is  consistently  high  throughout,  or  who 
is  consistently  low  throughout,  though  there  are  two  who  are  con- 
sistently medium  throughout. 

On  the  other  hand,  no  one  who  is  consistently  high  in  learning  is 
consistently  low  in  retention.  But  there  is  one  individual,  E.  R.,  who 
is  consistently  low  in  learning  and  consistently  high  in  retention ;  and 
another,  J.  Mc,  who  is  consistently  low  in  learning  and  consistently 
medium  in  retention.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  these  two  per- 
sons, especially  the  former,  overlearned  the  material  on  the  first 
learning.  Through  excess  of  caution,  they  delayed  presenting  them- 
selves for  the  test  of  learning  until  they  were  extra  sure  of  their  mate- 
rial. So  we  may  suppose.  If  so,  this  moral  trait  of  caution  would 
produce  the  spurious  appearance  of  a  connection  between  slow  learn- 
ing and  good  retention. 

Examination  of  Tables  VI.-X.  shows  that  among  the  17  individ- 
uals included  there  is  one  who  was  consistently  low  in  learning  and 
rather  consistently  medium  in  retention,  and  one  who  is  consistently 
medium  in  learning  and  rather  consistently  high  in  retention;  but 
none  who  is  consistently  high  in  learning  and  consistently  medium  or 
low  in  retention. 

Of  the  41  individuals  whose  records  are  here  presented  in  full, 
then,  there  is  no  case  of  an  individual  who  can  be  definitely  classed 
as  a  quick  learner  and  as  a  poor  retainer.  There  are  several  quick 
learners  whose  average  position  in  retention  is  considerably  lower 
than  their  position  in  learning,  but  the  variability  of  their  position, 
as  regards  retention,  makes  it  impossible  to  place  them  definitely. 

Intellectual  Standing  (Mental  Ability.) — A  comparison  of  the 
results  given  by  the  various  groups  of  subjects  (e.  g.,  hospital  attend- 
ants with  college  students)  leads  us  to  suspect  that  there  is  a  direct 
relation  between  capacity  or  ability  to  learn,  and  general  intelli- 
gence. Most  of  those  who  have  investigated  this  matter  have  arrived 
at  the  same  conclusion.  Jacobs,7  for  example,  states  that  there  is  a 
"notable  concomitance"  between  school  standing  and  "span  of  pre- 
hension." Others,  however,  Bolton  and  Ebbinghaus,  for  example, 
deny  that  any  such  correlation  exists.  Their  results,  however,  were 
derived  in  large  part  from  examinations  of  single  groups  that  were 

7  Mind,  Vol.  12,  1887.  Others  who  have  obtained  a  positive  correlation, 
though  not  so  high  as  Jacobs,  are  Binet,  Bourdon,  Burt,  Pohlmann,  Smedley, 
Winch  and  Wessley. 


BESULTS  53 

fairly  homogeneous  and  not  by  a  comparison  of  one  type  of  intellec- 
tuality with  another. 

We  can  not  here  go  into  a  detailed  examination  of  all  the  results 
shown  in  the  tables  for  the  reason  that  space  does  not  permit  giving 
the  complete  data.  But  we  may  say  that,  to  a  certain  extent,  the 
correlation  depends  upon  the  material  used.  It  was  found  that  where 
the  material  is  logical  in  character,  especially  in  the  case  of  prose, 
the  college  graduates  do  better  than  clerks  and  office  men  of  the  same 
average  age,  and  that  these  do  better  than  asylum  attendants;  that 
college  students  do  better  than  inmates  of  reformatories,  and  that 
Barnard  College  seniors  do  better  than  the  female  servants  of  the 
same  age.  The  differences,  however,  are  not  marked.  Upon  taking 
any  one  form  of  material,  contrary  results  may  obtain.  Thus,  e.  g., 
the  businessmen  and  clerks  do  slightly  better  with  prose  than  do 
college  students  of  the  same  age,  while  with  poetry  they  do  worse. 
With  nonsense-syllables  the  order  is  very  much  the  same  as  for  prose, 
although  here  the  senior  college  students  do  best  of  all.  With 
digits  the  group  of  clerks  and  business  men  do  better  than  any  others 
excepting  the  classes  in  experimental  psychology.  We  can  not  help 
but  infer  that  this  is  due  in  a  large  measure  to  practise. 

Such  statements  as  the  above,  however,  are  more  or  less  loose  for 
the  reason  that  they  refer  only  to  groups  of  subjects.  Some  of  the 
hospital  attendants  may  have  been  more  intelligent  than  some  of  the 
college  students.  More  exact  results  were  obtained  in  classes  where 
the  general  rank  in  class  of  each  scholar  could  be  ascertained — all 
his  studies  being  taken  into  consideration.  An  examination  of  the 
class  records  of  the  132  normal-college  students  proved  ''that  the 
students  who  rank  highest  in  their  classes  and  who  can  be  classed  as 
the  most  intelligent  have,  as  a  rule,  the  best  memories."8  With  the 
group  in  question  the  correlation  between  memory  and  standing  in 
class  was  found  to  be  .31. 

Social  Standing  (Occupation,  Environment  and  Moral  Conduct). 
— By  social  standing  we  mean  not  only  one 's  standing  in  society,  from 
a  "worldly  point  of  view,"  but  also  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
sociologist.  Other  things  being  equal,  we  wish  to  determine  if  any 
one  occupation  is  more  conducive  to  tenacity  of  impression  than  an- 
other. It  will  be  noted  that  this  problem  is  closely  linked  with  the 
preceding;  and  as  we  used  as  subjects  prisoners  and  reformatory 
inmates,  we  may  say  that  it  also  bears  on  morality. 

The  group  differences  here  like  those  for  mental  ability  differ  with 
the  materials  used.  The  differences  where  the  total  material  is  con- 
sidered are  best  seen  by  consulting  and  comparing  the  appropriate 

8D.  O.  Lyon,  Jour,  of  Phil.,  Psych,  and  Sci.  Methods,  1912,  9,  74. 


54      RELATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  RETENTIVENESS 

tables.  With  digits,  no  correlations  of  any  account  were  obtainable, 
though  here,  as  before  said,  the  business  men  and  clerks  seem  to  do 
better  than  any  of  the  others  with  the  exception  of  the  group  in  ex- 
perimental psychology.  The  business  men  are  rather  slow  in  learning 
the  nonsense-sylldibles  and  their  degree  of  retention  of  these  is  worse 
than  any  other  group  with  the  exception  of  the  grammar-school  stu- 
dents. With  words  they  stand  on  a  par  with  the  high-school  students 
but  for  prose  they  seem  to  do  slightly  better,  both  for  time  of  initial 
learning  and  for  relative  amount  forgotten.  This  is  what  we  should 
expect,  since  we  have  found  that  there  is  a  positive  correlation  be- 
tween mental  ability  and  memory  capacity.  With  the  poetry,  how- 
ever, they  do  not  do  so  well  as  the  high-school  students  and  even  drop 
slightly  below  the  grammar-school  students. 

The  inmates  of  the  reformatories,  and  to  a  slightly  less  extent  the 
prison,  rank  fairly  high  for  digits,  and  words,  so  far  as  quickness  of 
learning  is  concerned.  For  nonsense-syllables  they  do  not  rank  so 
high.  For  prose  and  poetry  they  stand  very  well,  ranking  even 
higher  than  the  college  students.  I  feel  that  the  explanation  of  this 
seeming  discrepancy  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  minds  of  reformatory 
inmates  are  very  receptive  while  in  confinement.  Their  life  being  for 
the  most  part  a  dull  monotony,  they  welcome  any  novelty  and  enter 
upon  the  experiment  with  considerable  zest.  This  is  undoubtedly  even 
more  true  as  explaining  their  high  degree  of  retentiveness  for  we  are 
led  to  believe  from  a  study  of  the  "introspections"  handed  in  that 
they  review  the  material  to  themselves  as  a  diversion.  The  average 
time  for  the  criminal  group  is  probably  increased  considerably  by  the 
fact  that  such  groups  invariably  contain  a  small  percentage  of  in- 
mates of  feeble  mental  mentality,  either  bordering  on  idiocy  or  afflicted 
with  one  of  the  numerous  psychoses. 

Age. — Speaking  of  memory  in  its  broadest  sense  we  may  say  that 
memory  capacity  increases  with  age.  This  statement  is  general  in  the 
extreme  in  that  the  rate  of  increase  varies  with  the  material  used. 
Generally  speaking,  it  was  found  that  the  increase  in  efficiency  with 
age  is  greater  in  the  case  of  prose  than  it  is  in  poetry,  and  in  both  of 
these,  greater  than  for  either  digits  or  nonsense-syllables. 

Several  investigators  have  performed  experiments  from  which 
they  conclude  that  there  is  a  state  of  maximal  efficiency  that  comes  in 
the  "teens."  At  this  period  they  maintain  that  the  memory  is 
stronger  than  at  any  other  period,  whether  preceding  or  following  it. 
To  me  it  seems  that  the  materials  they  have  used  have  been  too  meager 
to  deduce  any  such  general  conclusion.  For  example,  Bernstein  and 
Bogdanoff  find  this  special  "memory  period"  to  occur  about  the  age 
of  15.    The  only  material  they  used  on  which  they  based  this  conclu- 


RESULTS  55 

sion  consisted  of  geometrical  figures.  To  me  it  seems  that  the  only- 
conclusions  one  can  derive  from  such  an  experiment  is  to  say  that 
when  geometrical  figures  are  presented  to  various  subjects  in  a  cer- 
tain way  and  then  tested  for  recognition  after  the  lapse  of  a  certain 
interval,  the  subjects  around  the  age  of  15  do  on  the  average  better 
than  older  students  and  adults. 

With  Method  1  I  find  that  high-school  students  averaging  from 
16  to  17  in  age  retain  more  of  the  poetry  than  do  the  younger  gram- 
mar-school students  and  the  older  college  students.  With  prose  the 
height  of  efficiency,  as  before  said,  appears  much  later  in  life  and  the 
more  abstract  and  difficult  the  material  the  later  it  appears.  This 
would  probably  have  its  limit,  however,  and  even  with  Kant's  "Cri- 
tique" men  of  50  would  undoubtedly  do  better  than  men  of  80.  The 
difficulty  experienced  by  the  younger  children  in  memorizing  a  non- 
sense-syllable is  undoubtedly  ascribed  to  many  causes.  Probably  the 
chief  of  these  is  that  nonsense-syllables  are  uninteresting,  and  though 
children  may  have  a  better  retentive  capacity  than  adults,  their  at- 
tentive capacity  is  decidedly  inferior. 

Sex. — Our  object  here  is  to  discover  if  there  is  any  difference  in 
retentive  capacity  between  the  male  sex  and  the  female  sex  as  a  whole, 
and  in  particular  if  there  is  any  difference  between  the  relation  of  the 
time  of  learning  to  the  amount  retained  in  one  sex  from  the  other. 

An  examination  and  comparison  of  my  tables  (including  some  not 
here  reproduced)  shows  that  as  a  whole  the  women  and  girls  do  better 
in  their  initial  learning  than  do  the  men  and  boys.  Thus,  e.  g.,  the 
Barnard  College  girls  memorized  the  total  material  in  a  shorter  time 
than  did  Columbia  College  men  of  the  same  age.  For  digits,  words, 
nonsense-syllables,  and  poetry,  the  girls  average  better  than  the  boys. 
With  prose  the  women  do  better  with  the  passage  starting  ' '  The  dia- 
mond bright  dawn,"  but  the  men  do  better  with  the  passage  starting 
1 '  The  present  study  of  monistic  philosophy. ' '  These  statements  apply 
only  to  time  of  first  learning.  When  we  come  to  retentiveness,  as  as- 
certained by  averaging  Methods  1,  2,  and  3,  we  find  that  though  the 
girls  still  hold  their  superiority  over  the  men  in  digits,  nonsense- 
syllables  and  poetry,  that  the  men  stand  equal  with  them  in  the  case 
of  words,  while  for  prose  the  men  even  seem  to  do  better. 


CHAPTER   IV 

SUMMARY  AND  RECAPITULATION  OF  THE  MAIN  RESULTS 

In  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  endeavored  to  set  forth,  more 
or  less  in  detail,  the  various  results  obtained  from  the  experiments 
performed.  In  a  few  cases  conclusions  were  drawn,  but  in  the  main 
they  were  reserved  for  the  present  chapter. 

Any  attempt  to  classify  these  conclusions  in  a  strict  and  exact 
manner  meets  with  failure.  An  analysis  of  them,  however,  shows 
that  they  may  be  roughly  put  under  two  groups :  ( 1 )  Those  relating 
to  methods  and  modes  of  experimentation  and  correlation  and  that 
partake  more  of  the  nature  of  inferences.  (2)  Those  results  that  are 
drawn  from  the  experiments  described  in  this  paper,  be  their  limita- 
tions and  imperfections  what  they  may.  The  following  is  a  brief  re- 
capitulation of  the  results,  conclusions,  and  inferences  of  these  two 
groups.  Several  of  the  following  have  been  drawn  from  an  examina- 
tion of  the  ' '  introspections. ' ' 

Group  1. — (1)  Memory  is  not  a  distinct,  separate,  and  concrete 
faculty  of  the  mind,  but  is  complex  in  the  extreme.  Experiments 
such  as  those  described  in  this  paper,  being  limited  in  character, 
apply  but  to  a  small  part  of  mentality — and  hence,  memory. 

(2)  Association  and  retention  are  closely  related.  It  is  a  question 
as  to  how  much  we  should  consider  the  former  in  investigating  the 
latter. 

(3)  The  relation  of  quickness  of  learning  to  retentiveness  de- 
pends upon  the  method  used  of  ascertaining  this  "retentiveness." 
The  different  methods  (v.  p.  43)  give  opposite  results,  and  yet,  in  one 
sense  of  the  word,  one  method  is  as  "  correct ' '  as  another. 

(4)  Two  people  may  have  equal  degrees  of  retentiveness  but  very 
unequal  degrees  of  recollection.  To  test  merely  the  power  to  recall  is 
but  to  test  a  .certain  factor  of  memory. 

(5)  "With  the  same  subjects  and  the  same  method  of  experimenta- 
tion, different  materials  give  different  results. 

(6)  In  testing  "memory"  when  taken  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the 
word  we  should  test  not  only  the  so-called  "rote"  memory,  but  we 
should  also  consider  the  subject's  ability  to  perceive  relationships  and 
associations,  and  his  ability  to  memorize  them. 

(7)  In  relearning  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  a  facility  of  form- 

56 


SUMMAET  AND  RECAPITULATION  OF  MAIN  EESULTS  57 

ing  new  associations  from  a  retention  of  subliminal  associations.    This 
disadvantage  is  carried  by  Method  3. 

(8)  "Method  1"  has  several  drawbacks.  The  chief  of  these  is 
that  reproduction  without  a  fresh  presentation  of  the  material  orig- 
inally learned,  reveals  only  the  strongest  of  the  original  impressions — 
the  so-called  "supraliminal  associations." 

(9)  An  examination  of  over  400  "introspections"  would  seem  to 
show  that  it  does  not  pay  to  attempt  to  multiply  the  various  forms  of 
imagery.  The  quickest  learners  employ  the  type,  or  combination  of 
types,  to  which  they  are  naturally  accustomed. 

(10)  A  factor  that  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  investi- 
gating retention  is  the  general  attitude  of  the  learner  toward  his 
work.  If  he  is  much  interested  in  the  problem  in  hand,  and  takes 
great  interest  in  his  task,  he  naturally  takes  more  care  and  conse- 
quently is  able  to  retain  longer  than  another  who  has  not  this  same 
feeling  of  interest.  Where  there  is  zeal  and  desire  in  learning,  there 
follows  an  earnestness  and  interest  in  the  work,  which  will  eventually 
result  in  greater  retentiveness.  This  is  particularly  noticeable  in  the 
tests  on  subjects  who  are  working  in  psychological  laboratories  and 
therefore  interested  in  experimental  psychology. 

Group  2. —  (1)  With  any  given  number  of  individuals,  it  may  be 
stated  as  a  general  rule  that  they  will  differ  more  in  the  time  they 
take  to  memorize  than  they  will  in  retentive  capacity. 

(2)  The  students  who  stand  highest  in  their  various  studies  and 
who  prove  upon  examination  to  be  "the  most  intelligent"  have,  as  a 
rule,  the  best  memories.  They  not  only  learn  more  quickly,  but  they 
retain  better. 

(3)  Those  who  employ  logical  associations  and  visual  imagery  in 
the  memorizing  of  a  series  of  words  or  nonsense-syllables  recall  them 
more  slowly  than  do  those  who  memorize  in  an  auditory  or  motor 
manner.  The  latter  type  of  subjects  recall  them  easily  and  quickly 
immediately  after  the  first  learning — but  forget  them  just  as  promptly. 

(4)  As  a  general  rule  it  is  best  to  memorize  thoroughly  before 
attempting  to  recall.  When  in  doubt  do  not  waste  time,  and  form 
confusing  associations  by  continuing  the  attempt,  but  consult  the 
text  immediately. 

(5)  In  general,  the  women  and  girls  do  better  in  their  initial 
learning  than  do  the  men  and  boys.  In  retentiveness,  however,  the 
men  and  boys  are  on  the  whole  slightly  superior,  but  this  is  not  so 
for  every  material. 

(6)  The  quickest  learners  tend  to  learn  their  material  more  as  a 
whole  than  do  the  slower  learners  and  this  is  invariably  so  with  the 
second  learning.  The  quick  learner  only  divides  his  material  into 
parts  when  he  is  totally  unfamiliar  with  it. 


58      BEL  AT  ION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  BETENTIVENESS 

(7)  The  quick  learners  tend  more  to  employ  rhythm  in  the  learn- 
ing of  digits,  nonsense-syllables,  and  words,  than  do  the  slow  learners. 
If  the  element  of  rhyme  or  rhythm  enters,  it  aids  the  ability  to  repro- 
duce after  learning.  Those  who  learn  by  means  of  rhythm  can  some- 
how or  other  reproduce  better  than  those  who  do  not  employ  such 
methods  of  rhythm. 

(8)  The  relation  of  quickness  of  learning  to  retentiveness  de- 
pends on  many  factors,  the  most  important  of  which  are  method, 
material  and  interval. 

(9)  A  change  in  the  interval  does  not  affect  different  forms  of 
material  to  the  same  degree. 

(10)  As  to  the  relation  of  quickness  of  learning  to  retentiveness 
the  most  general  statement  that  can  be  made  is  that  those  who  learn 
quickly  remember  longest  if  the  material  is  logical  in  character. 
Where  the  material  is  ' '  illogical ' '  and  is  memorized  by  ' '  motor  asso- 
ciations" so  to  speak,  the  converse  is  true.  This  however,  has  many 
exceptions,  depending  upon  the  method  used.  The  exceptions  are 
most  notable  in  the  case  of  nonsense-syllables  and  words  (v.  pages 
41  to  46). 

(11)  By  Method  1  the  score  obtained  by  the  first  half  of  the  class  is 
invariably  better  than  that  obtained  by  the  second  half.1  The  differ- 
ence between  the  first  quarter  of  the  class  and  the  last  quarter  is 
naturally  even  more  marked.  The  difference  is  found  to  be  greatest 
in  th  case  of  prose  and  least  in  that  of  digits.  With  prose  we  fre- 
quently find  that  the  first  quarter  of  a  class  of  24  will  remember  (by 
Method  1)  half  as  much  again  as  the  last  quarter. 

(12)  The  experiments  on  school  children  show  that  girls  from 
the  years  of  10  to  24  learn  more  quickly  than  boys  of  the  same  age. 
The  results  also  show  that  the  number  of  retained  members  of  any 
series  increases  from  year  to  year. 

(13)  There  is  a  positive  correlation  between  education  and  mem- 
ory. Inmates  of  prisons  and  attendants  in  state-hospitals  do  not  do 
as  well  as  boys  of  15  years  of  age.  Education  thus  has  much  the  same 
effect  upon  retentiveness  as  has  age. 

(14)  With  both  nonsense-syllables  and  words  the  first  syllables  of 
a  series  is  retained  longer  than  those  in  the  middle  of  the  series. 

i  Excepting,  in  the  case  of  two  groups  of  subjects,  the  digits. 


APPENDIX 

Some  of  the  Materials  Used 

The  materials  most  used  have  been  quoted  in  the  text,  pp.  22  ff. 
The  following  materials  were  used  on  some  groups  of  subjects. 

List  of  20  digits:  6,  1,  5,  8,  2,  7,  5,  3,  9,  4,  7,  2,  5,  9,  3, 
0,  8,  1,  6,  2. 

As  presented  for  study,  this  list  was  arranged  in  a  vertical  column, 
as  were  also  the  lists  of  nonsense-syllables  and  of  words. 

List  of  12  nonsense-syllables:  LEV,  DUT,  NIV,  POZ,  DIB,  FEG, 
ZAD,  TOB,  KED,  BUP,  KIF,  RUZ. 

List  of  20  words:  BIRD,  RUG,  EAR,  SLATE,  CAP,  DOOR, 
BOX,  TREE,  CORN,  AXE,  SAIL,  HINGE,  BUG,  SPOOL,  DOG, 
BOOK,  POST,  GUN,  BEAN,  LAMP. 

Poem 

To  see  a  man  tread  over  graves 

I  hold  it  no  good  mark; 
"lis  wicked  in  the  sun  and  moon, 

And  bad  luck  in  the  dark. 

You  see  this  grave?    The  Lord  he  gives, 

The  Lord  he  takes  away: 
O  Sir!  the  child  of  my  old  age 

Lies  there  as  cold  as  clay. 

Except  that  grave,  you  scarce  see  one 

That  was  not  dug  by  met 
I'd  rather  dance  upon  'em  all 

Than  tread  upon  these  three! 

Ay,  Sexton !   'tis  a  touching  tale ! 

You,  Sir,  are  but  a  lad; 
This  month  I'm  in  my  seventieth  year, 

And  still  it  makes  me  sad. 

Passage  Approximately  of  100  Words  from  E.  Mach 

The  present  study  of  the  monistic  philosophy  is  intended  for  thoughtful  read- 
ers of  every  condition  who  are  united  in  an  honest  search  for  the  truth.  An  in- 
tensification of  this  effort  of  man  to  attain  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  is  one  of 
the  most  salient  features  of  the  nineteenth  century.  This  is  easily  explained  in 
the  first  place,  by  the  immense  progress  of  science,  especially  in  its  most  impor- 
tant branch,  the  history  of  humanity;  it  is  due  in  the  second  place,  to  the  open 
contradiction  that  has  developed  during  the  century  between  science  and  the  tra- 
ditional ' '  Eevelation. ' ' 

59 


60      HALATION  OF  QUICKNESS  OF  LEARNING  TO  KETENTIVENESS 

Passage  of  160  Words  from  Kant's  "Critique" 

Time  is  nothing  but  the  form  of  the  internal  sense,  that  is,  of  our 
intuition  of  ourselves,  and  of  our  internal  states.  Time  can  not  be  a 
determination  peculiar  to  external  phenomena.  It  refers  neither  to 
their  shape,  nor  to  their  position,  etc.,  it  only  determines  the  relation 
of  representations  in  our  internal  state.  And  exactly  because  this 
internal  intuition  supplies  no  shape,  we  try  to  make  good  this  defi- 
ciency by  means  of  analogies,  and  represent  to  ourselves  the  succession 
of  time  by  a  straight  line  progressing  to  infinity,  in  which  the  mani- 
fold constitutes  a  series  of  one  dimension  only ;  and  we  conclude  from 
the  properties  of  this  line  as  to  all  the  properties  of  time,  with  one 
exception,  i.  e.,  that  the  parts  of  the  former  are  simultaneous,  those  of 
the  latter  successive.  From  this  it  becomes  clear,  also,  that  the  repre- 
sentation of  time  is  itself  an  intuition,  because  all  its  relations  can  be 
expressed  by  means  of  an  external  intuition. 

Two  Lists  of  Disconnected  Sentences 

1.  From  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  those  angels  have  come. 

2.  This  horse  ate  nothing  but  oats. 

3.  The  wise  man  seizes  every  opportunity. 

4.  Ten  years  had  elapsed  and  they  therefore  crowned  him. 

5.  From  my  own  experience  I  know  he  will  never  achieve  success  in  that  line. 

6.  The  farce  entitled  "The  Telltale  Coo"  was  written  by  Haljass,  an  author 
who  lived  in  Venebaft. 

7.  The  wise  man  is  one  who  realizes  the  value  of  industry. 

8.  The  laboratories  here  are  so  arranged  that  the  room  for  psychological  work 
receives  the  most  sunlight. 

9.  The  work  executed  in  prisons  and  reformatories  is  quite  frequently  very 
well  performed. 

1.  Opportunity  comes  both  to  the  wise  man  and  the  fool. 

2.  The  two  wells  met  and  the  waters  were  dammed  back. 

3.  We  can  say  from  Christ's  teachings  that  God  is  Love. 

4.  I  had  dreamt  that  either  rain  or  snow  would  fall. 

5.  Sin  begets  sorrow,  as  any  knave  can  tell  from  experience. 

6.  The  fairy  thought  that  either  son  or  daughter  would  suffice. 

7.  The  school  system  is  but  one  of  our  many  failures. 

8.  A  short  time  ago  that  nation  was  rich  and  prosperous. 

9.  From  his  writings  we  considered  him  a  man  who  smoked. 

10.  "Waste  not,  want  not"  and  "Grain  in  the  morning  sow." 

As  may  be  noted,  the  sentences  are  not  only  peculiar,  but  many  of 
them  are  awkward.  Many  of  them  come  from  old  Hindu  fables,  the 
awkward  translation  being  desirable  for  the  experiment  in  question. 


VITA 

Born  in  New  York,  May  17,  1887;  prepared  for  college  at  Peekskill 
on  Hudson  and  at  the  Mount  Vernon  High  School 

1904-07,  College  of  Physicians  &  Surgeons  (Columbia  Univ. ). 

1907-08,  University  Scholar  in  Psychology. 

1908-09,  studied  in  France,  Germany  and  Switzerland. 

1909-10,  mining  and  metallurgical  engineer. 

1910-11,  University  Scholar  in  Psychology. 

1911-12,  University  Fellow  in  Psychology. 

1912-13,  Research  work  at  Psychiatrical  Institute,  Wards  Island, 
and  at  the  Kings  Park  Hospital  for  the  Insane,  Long  Island. 

1913-14,  post-graduate  student  at  the  University  of  Vienna,  taking 
courses  in  Psychology,  Psychiatric  Neurology,  Anatomy,  and 
Surgery. 

1914-15,  Surgeon  at  the  American  Ambulance,  Paris,  in  the  Franco- 
German  War. 

1915-17,  voyaging  in  Africa  combined  with  study  of  tropical  dis- 
eases, native  life,  etc. 

Received  degree  of  M.  A.  (Columbia  University)  in  1908;  M.  D. 
(N.  Y.  H.  Med.  Coll.  &  Flower  Hospital),  1912. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THELAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

TH,S   BOOK   ON   T»E   °    ™?s  ON "hETOURTH 
^r^^^cl^^HVsBVBNTH     - 

OVERDUE. 


MAR 
lUN 


-SENTOfHtt- 

N0VT8 


— m^tw" 


RETO     MAR  3  0  l9e|1 


U  C  BERKELEY  LIBFj*?!^i, 

cosM7asma 


YC  03572 


3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


